What if multiple individuals call in at the same time or record all those all those uh comments?

It will.

Okay.

They have a way to take them and just call on them as they come or whatnot.

Yeah, we have to use a 1-800 number or a toll-free number, I should say, and that's the reason to have the the uh the phone call uh be that and we'll have to use the best decorum that we can to ensure that everyone gets a chance.

We'll err on the side of caution to allow that um but uh but that would that would be how the hearing would be held.

Is there a is there a brief statement before they you know enter there so they can put their name and everything, but also this is this is what this is about, right?

Yes.

Yeah, we'll we'll uh explain what it's for and then we'll ask for names of those who would like to speak and then we'll read their name and give them a chance to to speak should they be interested.

Questions?

Just quick question.

Is it so is it all call in then in person?

Correct.

Yeah, I mean bean got this in the email and and uh I I should just fall on my sword a little bit here.

We have used the state process, right?

Which was a hearing, a discussion, it was noticed in the paper, etcetera.

The the TEFRA or federal treasury hearing is is not as robust as that.

But we usually try to do them both at the same time.

And uh when we've done these types of deals before, we've just relied upon the location by virtue of the project itself.

My tax group came to me and said we're concerned because there's been emphasis recently in the last couple of years on a street address.

I mean, I'm not sure anyone in Lehigh doesn't know where Thanksgiving point is, but uh there are some inexperienced auditors that may choose to get hung up on that.

We all believe we would prevail.

I don't think anyone's gonna have standing to say they didn't know where Thanksgiving point was in the state law process, but just to avoid the argument and extricating ourselves from that is the reason for recommending holding this uh uh TEFRA TEFRA hearing.

And and I I honestly apologize.

Um that's just something new since the last time we did a deal like this.

But at the same time, that's why we use people like Randy and their firm is because there's things going on all over the country.

It's not just Randy and his team here.

They has people all over the you know, the tax specialists that are just help us to make sure we're we're uh 100% clean.

So that's all it is.

And there will be no action at the hearing, right?

I mean, there will be no legislative action, no governmental action, it's just opening the closing the hearing.

Any other questions?

I assume we'll get a printout of all the comments.

We'll be keeping minutes for that.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Sorry you drove all the way here for that.

I'm I'm I'm on my way to a certain basketball game.

So you will go timely that's why the traffic's bad.

Well, not the way I was coming, but now it will.

Now it will be thank you.

Okay.

Uh item uh 2.3 is discussion of Cody Black's proposal to prepare a development agreement for a light manufacturing research and development business within the mixed use on a property located at 870 north 100 east.

That is going to be followed by 2.4, which is will be related to that discussion, and that's a discussion of the development agreement review and approval process.

And I tell you the reason we're doing that is because to have item two point three listed on the the agenda, that's we've never done it this way before.

Uh developer agreements are important and they're an important part of the process, but they've always followed a particular order.

Uh when we looked at it and we'd seen in the in the uh in the code that that order was not clear, that's what item 2.4 is.

But normally uh for a developer agreement, the council is the legislative body.

They have the right to make decisions, they have the right to uh to change uh legislation, local legislation, and they're often encouraged to do that.

They also have the responsibility to make sure that people's personal property rights are protected, and in that process they have the right to uh the the applicant has the right to do process, which means he come in can come in and make the argument that they're being treated unfairly because of the way the code is written, and then that is an opportunity.

The states decided that's an opportunity for development agreements to take place so that the legislative body can evaluate the situation and make changes if necessary so that that person's property rights are protected.

So it's a pretty important uh factor in the constitution.

However, you know, this item tonight, it's just out of the ordinary to do it this way.

And I just want you to keep that in mind on this this uh item and also 2.4 as we try to make sure that that's clear in the future.

So item 2.3, the applicant can come up, please.

Hi, I'm Jonathan Schultz.

It said Cody Black, but he's my realtor.

So yeah, so I'm new to this.

Uh we're looking at making very small suspension components.

And I'm a startup, and uh uh it's hard to find a small space that fits all the right things for as small as I am that I can still have a C and C machine to make the parts, right?

We are uh four machines, relatively small.

Um anyways uh uh very clean operation, all enclosed, uh quiet.

In fact, when we went and visited the buildings that we were evaluating, uh the tenants that were there were louder than us.

In fact, the overhead furnace is louder than the noise that I make.

So just out of curiosity, what is this suspension for?

This is for a dirt bike.

I was just gonna say it looks like a bicycle suspension.

So dirt bike and mountain bikes is what I love.

So well, I'm with you on that one.

So the for the applicant.

Yeah, if I could, Mayor.

Um first of all, I I just want to take the opportunity to to say I appreciate um I I may have jumped the gun a little quick on this, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk uh with the council tonight and with Jonathan on this issue.

Um the the thought was is that would always go through the process and the idea was is it would always go through to the new council for a decision.

Um the part of the reason I thought it was good to maybe see if there was some um some common ground on it is that um he's looking at a property that that could lease out, and so I just to me I think this is a great opportunity for small business like his if it could come in and and uh get the this kind of space, I think it's a great startup for Lehigh to have and such.

So um I I don't know, um Cody sent out a packet on December 1st to the um or around December 1st.

And I know Michelle, you saw that and think you had discussions as well.

Um the as we met with Kim, um Jonathan and I, what we thought was is you know the important thing was is the noise, which he he um has a decibel level that's very quiet.

Um our operation, which is a nine to six, eight to six kind of thing, right?

Um it's something where in my opinion for the council in the new year, um it what brought what raised my eyebrows about this too was is it seems like this light manufacturing um design and what what's the other part of it?

Kim, it's manufacturing design and assembly could almost have a conditional use in the mixed use zone because it's it's very uh it it it seems to fit that zone very well.

So that's something that you know not that we can do anything about that at this point, but I think if the the council in the new year could look at that, I think that would be very beneficial and um attract more businesses like Jonathan's to Lehigh as well.

Um but tonight my my thought was and again I I didn't mean to circumvent the process, but was if if there was some common ground on some elements of a developer a potential development agreement, um then if if direction could be given to staff to draft that, then um in January um Jonathan would still go through DRC Planning Commission and then eventually you know make hopefully make it to City Council with the opportunity for the new council to go through that developers agreement and say yay or nay to it.

So anyway, so that uh my and listening to his presentation and seeing what he makes and things it it seemed pretty straightforward to me in my opinion that you know if we if we listed this if we granted him this use and mixed use uh for this particular uh product that he makes and for the machinery that he uses that it would um and and list the hours of operation and and some some things it's a fairly simple business that he runs, and I again I think it's a fairly uh it's a good start-up to to come to Lehigh.

So anyway, so those are just my thoughts right off the bat.

So I do have a question about the facility.

Um I think I know where it is, it's where the current library is, right?

That thing.

Okay, I have been there, but I didn't pay attention to the walls.

Is there any kind of insulation or noise sound barrier?

Yeah, we visited a few units there and I didn't hear the other tenants when we were there, even though they were making decent amount of noise.

So when you're in your that building that you want to use, you can hear them.

Yeah, I think it's pretty well insulated.

Okay.

Those are certainly the only people that would hear me, right?

Like would be the neighboring walls.

Yeah.

Can I see the part?

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

I'm sorry, I do have an interest in this sort of stuff.

Yes, it's called a cone valve.

Hiding in here that you can see in that piece is that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Hey Jonathan, when you get back to my polish a question.

I just want you explain something about that part.

So Bill, let me uh aluminum and stainless steel.

Okay.

So we we got another uh uh machinist in town that's been extremely successful for making small custom parts like that.

He's he's also in an office warehouse area on staff, it's just off state street.

I know him pretty well.

And uh he's been so successful.

The the one issue he's had is uh is where to put all the equipment.

Easy started with one CNC machine.

Now I think he has five in the same spice where he used to have one.

So you know, he's kind of moved everything out out into the parking lot, so that's something to just want to plan for your success, is what I'd say.

Right.

So can you quickly just explain the red the the how the metal the red metal becomes and that it's that's not done at your shop, that's done to the same.

So we we actually do uh this part as it sits and as you held it, has no other finished process.

These are right out of the machine except for the red anodizing, and that happens at another place.

Somebody that specializes in that.

So I have no interest in m metal finish.

Okay.

Well, yeah, you you will be going through the process again, that's fine.

And that that is the developers agreements, as I mentioned, their mechanism that helps protect people's property rights, you know, and their neighbors as well, but that's what they're for.

So Mayor, would it would it be okay then if I just gave a couple um ideas of what could be in that if staff were okay to maybe start drafting something or let's wait till we if that's okay till we get through the process or till it goes through the process.

Okay.

I think I guess just to clarify do you mean the development agreement process or the no traditional zone change the zone change process and I don't so I don't know if you two are talking about the same thing, but yeah.

Um well so let me let me clarify this.

Does he have to go through a change of zone process to in order I guess is that how the developer agreement would come up is because the zone or not to change it, but he's asking to do something within mixed use that doesn't comply.

So then he's asking to usually it comes through if if the current zone doesn't allow the use, he'd be asking for the zoning that would allow the use.

And so that usually goes through that process, then comes to the council and if they just feel like well we don't want to change the zone because if this you know if this person goes away or sells the property, doesn't build what they say they're gonna build, you know, then so that then you usually direct staff to draft a development agreement that keeps the zoning the same but then allows a use that's not currently allowed in that zone.

So I just didn't know if I think that's what the mayor's talking about.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yeah.

So I I just I mean you can really I I don't care, but I think it's probably more appropriate at that stage, you know, when he comes forward again and say, okay, let's look at this things that can be done if we don't re if we're considering not rezoning and a developer's agreement.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

That makes sense.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I I do.

We're talking about the process now.

The process of going through develop seeking a development agreement.

Well, the process is is yeah.

To start considering a developer agreement now, you know, and and have that conversation, you know, with thinking that okay, there may or may not be a zone change, and if there's not a zone change, then we're gonna consider a developer's agreement.

Okay, so that's not in code right now, but that's what you want the policy to be.

It is, and I'll let Kim speak towards that.

It's just an item.

Yeah.

That's the next item we're going to be talking about.

That's what I wondered what we were talking about.

We're just kind of trying to structure it a little bit better.

Yeah.

I was just going to say there have been times other than a zone change, like if somebody wanted to amend the table of uses and say, you know, we would request to put a conditional use, like you were saying earlier, for this use in mixed use same thing.

You know, it would get to you, and you could say, well, we don't want to change the table of uses, but we'll direct staff to enter into a development agreement.

So it doesn't have to be a zone change application per se.

In fact, it's it can happen well, even tonight there's an item on here that was a general plan amendment, and that and at that stage you directed us on the water's edge piece to but normally we've had some type of a land use application that goes through the full process, then when it gets to you, that's when you direct us to say, you know, we're not comfortable approving what they're asking, but we'd be okay with this little you know compartmentalized version of it in a development agreement.

So anyway, just to make it clear that it doesn't always have to be a zone change.

So Kim, is that uh development code requirement or is this just setting kind of the policy or a process?

In the history, and I guess that's what the next item is is do you want to more clearly identify an actual process?

So I guess we'll get to that next.

So I guess that's the thing.

I was just gonna say, so is this when we're following state code?

That state code requires that in order to it's municipality may require a development agreement for developing land within a municipality if the applicant has applied for a legislative or discretionary approval, including the approval related to goes through a list of things including the zone change.

So like in state code, it's saying there has to be some kind of application before it doesn't just straight go to a developer agreement.

Is that what we're I think maybe what we want to see if you're comfortable and how we would define it?

We'd probably we could take that and just put it in our code.

Okay.

Yeah.

So for Jonathan tonight, which I think gets the same accomplishment, because we knew we couldn't make a decision tonight, right?

But maybe the direction I'd give you, if this sounds correct, at this point, is to apply for that conditional use to be included in the mixed use zone, right?

Or to allow light manufacturing design and whatever assembly to include that in the mixed use as a conditional use.

And then that applying for that, that could lead either lead to yes, the new council approving that use, or resulting in, hey, we we may need to come up with a developer's agreement to do it.

Exactly.

Is that and then and then the same things we talked about hours of operation noise, all that kind of stuff.

That that's when that would come up during that process anyway.

And then so does that make sense?

Hopefully it helps a little bit.

Yeah, it makes sense.

Okay.

Yeah.

So yeah, particularly tonight, it's because the I the applicant actually suggests a development agreement.

Well, that's what we talked about.

Yeah, so that's why technically we don't have an applicant yet.

Yeah.

Well, yeah.

A proposed applicant.

So thank you very much.

Okay, that brings us to item 2.4, and since we're already having that the discussion on this, Kim.

Yeah, I guess we can just figure out where we left off.

Yeah.

Um if if you're familiar with hopefully you are familiar with the development code and the various chapters.

29 is the chapter that defines or describes development agreements, and it's only one and a half pages.

There's or excuse me, one and a half columns of text.

It's not a very long section, it's on about you know, a half of a page.

So it's very short, and it and it basically just says, you know, that you as the city council have the ability to enter into development agreements per state code, but and uh it's at your discretion.

Um it talks about um that it becomes a binding contract between the parties.

You get to identify the terms, and you know, obviously the other party can agree or disagree or try and negotiate it does identify the city attorney as the designee authorized to negotiate the agreements on behalf of the Lehigh City.

Um that it really is silent on the process.

It doesn't ever say, you know, uh a citizen can initiate it, you know, by contacting the city council, which is how this last one happened, or you must file a land use application.

It doesn't ever say, you know, uh a citizen can initiate it, you know, by contacting the city council, which is how this last one happened, or you must file a land use application was it sounds like in the state code, maybe that's our first uh thing that we should do is just see if if it's already clearly identified there, we just say the procedure for entering into a development agreement must follow, and then we could cite that section.

But yeah, I guess we just wanted to make sure you knew that our code is not clear, it it leaves it undefined on how how do we initiate that.

There's not, you know, for all the other, you know, zone change, code amendments, all those things.

I have a application right here, you know, by Norreen's desk.

I can hand it to a person.

There is no application for development agreement.

It's a specialized tool that you get to choose when you want to use it.

That's why there's not a process, a formal process that's just a development agreement application.

So we want to have that a formal application for development agreement, or do we because right now you just suggest that's a potential or the applicant knows that's a potential for that.

And I agree with that, right?

It does seem a little odd to have a developer agreement because we're almost introducing it probably in many places and circumstances where it probably doesn't fit.

Well, I think that would violate state code to have a developer agreement application, because according to this, you have to have one of these other kind of applications, and then that is what would lead to the developers agreement.

So Heather, can you tell me what section of state code you're in?

Um 10-9A-532 developer agreements, Utah code 9A.

Yeah, 9A 532.

532.

I I wonder too, Kim, if um in a process like this, if if someone comes in to talk with staff about a possible application, right?

Because anyone can come in and talk about a proposed application without filing one, correct.

Um to me, like in this case, in my opinion, I would I would not want the applicant to think they have to come in to do a zone change.

If there's a I I I guess I'm gonna use terms that may not be the best, but if there's an easier path, and in this case, adding a conditional use to the mixed use zone for specific use, right?

If if if that's something that seems feasible and seems like, hey, that's you know, that that could have as much of a realistic you know what I mean, right?

That that could get the the thing done as much as a zone change, you know.

What I'm trying to do is make sure they're not going through a process that's gonna cost them more time and money, right?

Where a business is trying to, you know, even though real estate um it's it's an up and down thing, it's it's I I guess what my idea was is again the understanding was with with myself and the party was is this was not gonna come to decision this this year, right?

Or with this particular body.

Um, but where he's trying to lock up some real estate for his particular shop, could we help kind of get that ball rolling, right?

And see what's the least what path that has the least resistance to get him to where he's trying to go.

And so I think I think tonight, like if the direct um if I guess what I was gonna say is if someone comes in like that, if if there's kind of a I I guess a menu, I don't know if that's the right word or not either, but options, right?

That hey, you could do this or you could do that.

Just that so it doesn't seem like oh, we've got to go through this mammoth zone change, it's only allowed, or general plan amendment that's only allowed twice a year, whatever, that the those options are listed better for them to understand that hey, you could, you know, we could try to do this, or if they're if they're directed towards a city council member, you know, they they've got some, hey, I was directed towards you to talk to you about this type of option or that type, you know.

So that you know what I mean.

So there's some foundation there to start with, and um maybe get through the process a little smoother.

Yeah, it would probably just be a case by case depending on what they're asking for, what the current zoning is.

And I think as planning staff, we just have to hopefully help them find, okay, this is the quickest way to get to the city council is this land use application.

But I think bottom line, it sounds like we do want them to file some sort of a land use application.

That's the only path to initiating.

And in this case, right, just to make sure I'm clear and that Jonathan's clear.

If he were to file something about change or adding that conditional factor into a mixed use zone for this use, that that would that would have um check that box as far as an application, correct?

Yeah.

He's applying for the quickest path.

Yeah.

Chris, so as I say, probably would I would have looked at doing on this, right?

It's coming to you and looking, especially when you're like considering like a conditional use applied to the mixed use zone.

You're not coming in, you're gonna do something that's broad spectrum, not just for them, not just for their developer agreement and work on the code with like you know, getting a sign-up from another city council member presenting it to staff like, hey, I like the idea of doing it adding a conditional use to mix use and having to go through that process.

The city council then on that point, like you um could be the lifter on it.

They don't have to apply.

You could then bring it through that way.

It's not really going through a developer agreement.

But that's really based on if you felt like this is something that I do like seeing in all the mixed-use zones.

I think that's probably what you're trying to get to, where this if we if we went this path and had um applicants start proposing developer agreements, I worry about precedence and the fact that we haven't allowed that with other applicants before.

So then when other applicants come back to us and say, you told us we can have a developer agreement.

Because I like even the one on tonight, I told them this will go to a developer agreement, but they still had to go all the way to city council and they get kicked all the way back again to like DRC and and start again.

So I worry about like playing favors with one where there might be a simpler way to do what you're trying to do than this process.

But I I just want to clarify the Utah code has been updated.

Is 1020 they renumbered Ludma?

And I'm not seeing this section you're referring to.

I um to C it says a municipality may require development agreement for developing land within a municipality if the applicant has applied for a legislative or discretionary approval, including da-da-da-da.

Um but that that's related to another section.

So I don't it's it and it's also a May instead of a shall, and Ryan's not here, but um I don't think it's required your computer problems.

Um yeah, so may, not a shell.

So I I'm not seeing that state code is requiring a legislative or a land use application before we go to development agreement.

Is that correct?

I'll have to read the section, but it says May, that should be discretionary.

Okay.

And um I don't I to me again it's a timing issue.

Um that that's a concern, and I I mean something similar is come be well, not me since I've been on here, but I know in the past a similar uh use request for a mixed use zone that didn't quite fit, but it should have kind of thing, like it wasn't a when it caused a nuisance or a problem or anything, the the good and the beautiful, right?

You know did a development agreement with them.

So I I I'm thinking when we can work with them, but also know that hey, this is an issue, we need to work on it.

And um I don't necessarily want to hold up somebody while we fix code because I mean look at our noise ordinance, right?

That's probably been a year or so, um, maybe longer.

So I like that it comes to a work session first.

Um, and then you can get the direction from three or more council members to proceed.

I that's you know, I think that would be a good thing, and you you made sure we did that.

Um, I there's a development agreement here towards the end of the agenda that I've never heard before, and that they didn't come for land use, you know.

I think that should have come to work session first before it was worked on.

So my feeling is this seems like an appropriate way to go about it.

Can I ask a question just kind of process-wise?

If if the applicant went and applied for, hey, in this project, I it's mixed use, I want to be able to have kind of an exception for this added as a uh as an item, but not necessarily globally, but for his specific project.

Would that trigger noticing for surrounding areas?

Uh it does now require at planning commission that we give public notice.

So yeah, I would say if it's specific to a particular property, which they all they all would be, then yeah, I would say we would notice anybody within 300 feet, just like if it was a zone change or some other standpoint, knowing that it it's one thing if it's just hey, you know, the council or a planning commission talking about changing the code in general, where it's gonna be a global application, that's not no that's not gonna trigger anything, but if it's tied to a specific project, then from a transparency from a noticing to the public, it it seems like it is putting the cart before the horse to have the the work start on a development agreement before the public even has a chance to weigh in on it uh for those that you know impact the residents or businesses.

And so to me this seems like one that makes a lot of sense.

Uh I like I I you know, looking at the you know what it is, the sound, everything else.

I I can't imagine there being an issue with this.

Uh, but it's not necessarily, you know, even if let's say we did give direction to staff to work start working on a development agreement, it doesn't short circuit the process, the the the process as far as you know what is gonna take.

Uh you know, if if I'm the applicant, I'm not necessarily going and signing the lease just based on the fact that development agreement is being worked on because there's still no guarantee that whatever that development agreement comes to is going to be approved by the city council and or the the you know the further application.

And so I'm not sure it's necessarily solving the you know, holding up a business moving forward with their uh information.

I I guess I'm I I'd be more I'd err on the side of making sure that we follow you know a process that everyone gets notified and and it's not short circuiting it.

But that's that's my two cents on my way out.

No, and I I think along with that, Paul, I I guess um I should have deferred you, Jonathan, to one that was going to be here in January because I am on my way out.

So um but I I wonder again, I again the idea was not to circumvent the process, right?

Um but the I the the point is and I don't think it is because they at the end of the day it still has to go through that normal process.

I just think a development agreement makes a lot more sense when you've already had the planning commission, DRC everything everyone else review it because then you know what elements have to be in it.

Otherwise we're putting something together that then is gonna we're gonna start legislating when it comes to money canceling.

Oh, let's add this and let's add this.

Let's just do it once.

Yeah, no, and what I was gonna say is I think that if in the process or in the code, if there's something that references what the starting point would be for even if it's it's not it's if the intents it's not that the intent has to be a developer's agreement, but hey uh the some application has to be filed first, and then and then if that application is leading to a difference between what they're asking for and what the code allows, then it could lead to you know you know how just kind of that path, right?

Um and again, because I mean uh we're we don't want to say to anybody that you can't reach out to your council member at any time.

They can reach out to to any one of the the six up here and talk about anything they want, right?

Um but maybe to to make sure that someone like me doesn't look like we're trying to jump the process.

We're not jumping it.

But I don't know.

I don't know if that's helpful or not, or is that clear as mud or what?

But I think I think I'm sensing a general direction.

I think we'll put a draft together and then in January, you know, two of the four of you will get to And that that's one of the things I thought tonight too was is just I I knew if anything there's two of you here, so if there was some that at least you're familiar with it as it comes back in hopefully January, towards the end of January, then again, you guys are you know, we're you're kind of familiar with it.

And I I mean obviously I could show up the night it comes and speak at planning commission or speak at city council on your behalf as a resident and share why I think it should be allowed.

Um yeah, those were my thoughts.

So Kim, what are you uh and Paul I appreciate your points that public comment would be good because if we're giving direction to staff, it would be helpful to have input to know kind of what conditions I guess we put in a development agreement.

So generally what I'm thinking is we'll just put language in here that says you know, a development agreement can only be, I guess, initiated through a land use, you know, by filing a land use application that comes before the city council, and then they would direct staff and then that development agreement would have to go back through its own process and we'd require public notice you know within 300 feet, like we would do for a zone change or um so with that some kind of preliminary land use application that has to go through DRC and the planning commission and then to us.

And then we're gonna say let's do a development agreement, so it has to go back through that process.

Yep.

Yeah, I don't know of another because the state now requires that once we once you say yes, we want to do a development agreement, that triggers this.

And that's not a bad thing, you know.

It it's probably healthy.

Yeah, that's yeah.

I mean a development agreement is essentially a one-off zone change.

So it makes sense why it would have that the rigor of that process.

Is there something that you could do to expedite once it's been given the direction to go to a developer agreement?

Because I know it then has to go back through.

Yeah, and there's a public notice requirement.

You had you do have to notice it as a public hearing, and so it's just you know, and they meet just like you twice a month, so it you just have to kind of navigate.

It's usually like on average, unless it's November, December where we have a lot of canceled meetings, you're usually two months for for a code change, and then that would be so they're basically four months, two months to exhaust their initial land use application and then another two months to go back through and vet the development agreement.

So and there's usually a week or so to for staff to prepare it based on what you information you give us before we can put it on VRC for their consideration.

So it just takes time.

Yeah.

So in this hypothetical though, if if he comes in, the application is to add it to use, like we've said, right?

That's the actual application.

So then if that application was successful, he's just going through the process once.

Yeah.

Yeah.

If it leads to a no, but we want it the council at the time says we want to create a developer's agreement because we want to do a one-off, then it would yep start it over again for him.

So doing that that change in use is really is what we're coming to is the quickest because it's not only applies to him, but everyone it changes the code.

And okay.

Yeah.

See, and that makes sense.

And then like you and Michelle were saying Heather, that if if a developer agreement is the will of the council, then it goes back to that process and the public is invited to comment on that as well on that developer agreement, the specifics of it and things like that, separate from the original application.

Who's to say it actually needs a developer agreement?

What if the council disagrees to it?

You know, really the developer.

I mean, they their application could be approved as presented and you know, comply to code without having to do that.

And I think we've done that before.

Yep.

Yeah, no, and that's it's this type of yeah, it's just I I guess if we want to add anything to the developer agreement process or the the column and the half in the code, right?

Um yeah, and so I I think just clearing it up a little like you were saying to this is the process, and this is yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I think we've made really good use of development agreements in the past.

I think it was as work to the beneficial individual applicants without you know in cases where it doesn't negatively affect their neighbors, and I think they're I think it's a beneficial tool.

But I think the process, and I I wholeheartedly agree with Paul's comments on that.

I mean, it's important to go through the process to get to that point.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

So on this particular case, the reason we went this route is because the use isn't allowed uh a conditional use permit in that zone.

So that avenue we we couldn't go.

So the only avenue we could have gone is to take uh the mixed use zone and rezone it to industrial, the way everything's written.

Well, we know you're not gonna no one's gonna approve that area into industrial.

So the the idea to go through that process, we already knew was gonna be a denial.

So it it was just a waste of time.

So that's why we didn't want to go that route.

And so this other option was available to discuss it here.

Once everyone puts in what they want in that agreement, that goes through the same process that the zone change would have gone.

Everyone's notified, everyone can see it online and show up for public input.

So you're getting the same concept going through.

It's just you're not wasting the the two, two and a half months of the denial.

Yeah, I I mean I understand your argument, but I think as has been articulated up here, I think pretty well.

There's still this there's there's the typical process that we want everybody to go through.

And even though we realize you'd have to make a certain application for that zone change, you know, we can't say for certain that others would object to it, although it's they probably would, but we don't know that, right?

And I think this is still the opportunity for him to move forward with his product to be able to do what he wants to do.

I just think it's important that we follow that process.

So Kim, we couldn't add that use to mixed use.

Yeah, I think what Cody described, there is another land use application, which is the one Chris has been talking about.

Not rezoning, but just changing the table of uses and adding a conditional use for that use that he wants to operate out.

Yeah.

So yeah, I think just so Cody understands there's there's a different application other than a zone change that they can file to change the development code and and what's allowed in that zone.

And that's what he does on the advice of planning, right?

I mean you make that suggestion, yeah.

I mean you try to move it forward.

The council's uncomfortable with it, but we agree that it infringes on his his rights to use the property, you know, as he needs to or as he wishes, then the council can say, well, okay, let's address this with a uh developers agreement.

So Kim, would all development agreements have to be tied to LNG's application or at least that's what I would propose, or that's the way I would envision drafting this.

Is just that's how you would get to the decision to initiate a development agreement, is some other land use application has to be vetted first.

I guess in legal term, not quite the same, but you've got to vet uh all of your other remedies, or at least try one, and if it doesn't, that's when you would decide to initiate the development agreement.

You can't start out with one, you've got to try some other way to accomplish different context, but you're thinking of exhausting your administrative.

That's uh that's more of an appellate, but same idea.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so what about a development agreement that's not necessarily a land use issue?

It's more financial.

Yeah, that uh defer to Brian.

As far as what going through the D R C that it has to be tied to some other Yeah, I mean I we've had that discussion.

I've had that with Marlon and I think with you the other day.

We get a little bit fast and loose with the term development agreement.

Or really there's different categories.

There's a land use development agreement, there's an economic development agreement, and we we we need to start being more specific because an economic development agreement would not need to go through the planning commission proceeds.

Just land use development agreements.

I I think back to that state code, and yes, it is a May, may require a developer agreement for developing land within the municipality if the applicant so if the applicant has applied for legislative or discretionary approval and then including the list of things, but it almost any legislative approval thing could be a developer agreement according to state code.

So maybe it doesn't need to be so specifically tied down, and it gives the list of I guess six things, but anything that's legislative could be developer agreement in that in that stance.

Yeah, it has to be a legislative land use decision instead of just a applying the code in an administrative way.

Yeah, so I guess it has to be tied somehow to developing the land, but I mean this would too, and including like they're just adding in something to the table of uses that's still part of development.

So Ryan, is there a section of Utah code that deals with economic development agreements?

Not in the same way that I'm familiar with as far as I mean, you know, if you I don't I doubt that the term even exists in state code.

It's just an agreement in conjunction with like what we used to call the creation of a CRA or things like that.

So I don't think that's it might be called something else besides the development agreement.

Yeah, we wouldn't even need to call it a development agreement.

Participation agreement.

So you know, just to make it just to keep it separate and not confuse people about which ones need to go to DRC planning commission and come back to the city council as opposed to almost any other kind of development agreement could just come straight to you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, let's move on.

Uh item three, agenda questions.

We do have a long agenda today or tonight.

Are there any questions on the agenda?

Um I think uh one or two with the uh consent agenda.

Um but I I'll just wait and ask.

Then we'll just say there's a lot on the consent agenda.

There's a lot on the consent agenda.

And I mean that was intentional just because of the length.

What we try to do is put all the Lehigh City items on consent agenda.

But as always, if you have questions, you can certainly pull something off consent agenda and have a more robust discussion about it.

But that was just our temptation to try to get through everything tonight.

Didn't want to skirt anything that you want to talk about.

So would we make a motion to pull the things we have questions?

I think part of when you meant the approval motion.

I think any one of you can ask to have something pulled off consent agenda.

It doesn't take a majority.

Because if one of you wants to discuss it, that's good enough.

We'll take it off.

So we pull it off if we have questions about it.

Yep.

Okay.

That it'd be part of the motion, right?

You'd ask in the motion when you approve the consent agenda to take these items off set.

Oh, you could do it that way, or you yeah, either way.

Or you could you can pull them off, talk about them.

But yeah, that's probably a cleaner way.

Yeah.

In the motion.

Approve everything except the ones you want to discuss, and then we'll get through those.

So that's a good idea.

Okay.

Any other any other questions?

Okay.

Administrative report.

Jason.

Nothing at this time of the year.

Okay.

Council reports.

Assignments.

Anyone have anything on their assignments?

Usually this time of year, they all go kind of go quiet, right?

So I've had a few meetings, but nothing really necessary to report.

We did have, I guess I can report.

We had our uh our let's see, our Pell, our uh report uh to Kay Christofferson.

That was the transportation bell that he enacted uh several months ago.

And we did get a chance to meet with uh Mag on that, and that is moving forward.

Uh they're they're in the process, they've already uh went out for bid for a lot of the engineers and uh scientists who's going to be working on that study, and I think they're narrowing that down in the next meeting they'll I well I believe in that meeting they were given the authority to go ahead and select the ones that they felt would be uh the best for that job.

So that is moving forward, and that is uh we're all looking forward to the information.

It's a 30-month process.

Kate Christofferson really did not like that a lot.

He kept trying to find ways to cut that down significantly for good reason, but they they committed to try to keep it as short as they could, but they didn't know that they could really get it much below the 30 month uh time period before we know what we can do as far as future transportation issues.

So but it is moving forward, and that's very encouraging.

Can I mention a couple things real quick?

That just so first of all, um Saturday I just wanted to mention the mayor and I attended the Reese Across America um event, and I I love that event, and uh it's always a small turnout, so I'd love to work with Mel and others and see if I can help broadcast that a little bit more.

But um but um it's just just a fun event to honor our veterans and and uh uh to have a little fun there.

And then I I wanted to say to staff, and I know a lot of them aren't here that helped with this, but the Santa parade I thought went really well, and I I'm amazed at how many staff are there, and it's a Saturday night this year's right Saturday night.

It's uh you know it's not necessarily work time, but you know you've got you've got depart employees from every department that are there either to be on the parade or to help pull those of us in the parade.

I mean it's all sorts of things, and it's a it's a Saturday evening, so it's always a great event, and I'm thankful for them.

Um and then lastly, the the youth council has the opportunity.

Um they they have to put in their slips this month, but they have an opportunity to go to USU in January, I believe.

It's either January or February for a leadership conference that's for youth councils throughout the state.

Um and I I have a daughter that's on that, so I'm hoping to do one of these two events, but they also have an opting to go to Washington, DC, and uh is it May, I think, is that one, the National League?

Or is it March?

Yeah, so um probably won't be able to get through that with my daughter.

But um anyway, but they they have those two opportunities coming up.

And I I know the Washington DC trip can be kind of tricky for some of them and for the group to go, but I'm hopeful that maybe they'll get to go and and see that as well.

So that's what's on uh that's a couple things on the youth council agenda coming up in the next couple months.

Thank you, Chris.

You did a great job in your speech the other day, Charlie.

Oh, thank you.

No, it is a good event to go to.

I wish it was better attended sometimes, but you know, we always have a small crowd, but it's time of year as well.

It's always good.

It's usually cold.

So anything else?

Okay, let's take a break until 7 p.m.

So we'll see you back here in a half hour to start a regular session.

We do not begin our regular session of the city council for Lehigh City.

Uh we do start this meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I have asked Heather if she would lead us in that today.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God is global with all.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh item two, we had presentations and reports listed, but there are none for tonight.

So there are skip that and we'll go to the uh uh item number three, which is 20 minutes for the citizen input.

Uh we do allow this at all our regular council meetings.

This is an opportunity for somebody to come up and speak at the podium, tell the council, tell staff, whatever uh is on your mind, so to speak.

If you see something out of place, something we need to uh pay attention to, this an opportunity to do that, communicate that with us and with staff so we can see if it's uh an issue that we need to address directly or or have somebody else address that.

We do ask that you leave your uh comments to about two minutes, if you will.

Uh the one rule is you have to come up to the podium and you have to state your name in the process at the beginning.

So is there anybody here who would like oh we do ask also if it's something that's on the agenda tonight?

I'm usually pretty good about taking public comment for all agenda items, so uh wait till that issues up and when it's more appropriate for that time.

So is there anybody here who has a general public comment that would like to bring to our attention tonight?

Okay, well, saying none, I just used a lot of words I didn't mean to to get us here.

So we will go ahead and close that item.

Uh that moves us to the consent agenda.

This is item number four.

It does have 13 associated items with it.

It's a large consent agenda item.

Typically happens uh at the end of the year.

There's a lot of uh uh loose ends to tie up that need to be done before year's end, and so that's what we have in front of us tonight.

Uh council, I know there was some questions on the consent agenda on at least a couple of the items.

Now's the opportunity to tell us uh which ones you are concerned about and whether or not uh you want to have a brief conversation on them first before we vote on the consent agenda item, or you want them pulled off and and moved as a set to separate topic.

So, council.

Um I mine actually is 5.2, so mine's outside of the consent agenda, so I apologize.

So I do have some questions, so I pull those to ask them.

Anyone that part of the motion?

Yeah, which numbers?

Um 4.4 and 4.13.

4.4 and 4.13.

Okay.

Uh we can we can pull those and we'll we'll address those separately right after.

Uh we are done with item four.

Council, is there any other requests?

Okay, I'll take a motion on item number four.

And please include it in your motion that we take item 4.4 and 4.13 out for a discussion after.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented with the exception of 4.4 and 4.13 to be discussed uh after.

Okay, I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And a second.

Any other questions on that?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Let's start with item 4.4 off of that consent agenda.

This is consideration of resolution 2025-98 approving a real estate purchase contract for land at 174 east, 100 north.

I do know, Martin, you're here if you don't mind getting up and explaining there was uh interesting situation here that I probably don't think I've ever seen before.

So you can explain it to the council.

Um so currently before you is a resolution to approve the purchase sale agreement at 174 East 100 North for grand total of 390,000.

Um we've left this on the consent agenda.

Uh we were supposed to close this week.

Um, but there has been an issue between the real estate agent and the seller.

So we wanted to leave this on the consent agenda for approval in hopes that the seller and the real estate agent, her real estate agent, can come to an agreement and then we can move forward with the sale of the property.

Can you tell us what that property is going to be used for?

In looking at the uh the overall city master plan, uh the property is going to be held so at some point in the future if we need to expand parking for the police department.

Um we have a first rider refusal on the house that sits on the corner, and this is the piece right next to it.

So this would give us um those two parcels, and we're trying to work with the adjoining neighbors to see if we can get first rider refusals to purchase their property at some point in the future.

So the the reason for owning the property is so that we have options in the future for expansion for the city campus.

So I'm trying to visualize the campus plan.

Um you don't think the the parking next to the city hall is going to make up for what you might lose, we might lose in the police station parking if we put a justice court building there.

Is that the plan?

I'm gonna defer.

I apologize.

No, that's okay.

I think it's it's more for the long-term plan once the you know the arts slash purpose built library in 30 years is built.

Um there'll be a uh plaza out front, so that'll eat up a lot of that parking.

Um secure parking for the entire downtown campus and main street.

So what um there's a house there now, what would you do with it in the meantime if it's maybe a couple decades out?

Uh would you just tear down down the house and have a vacant lot or at this point we need to see if the house is rentable, if it's rentable, then that's what we'll do is rent it out.

If not, uh then we would take the house down and turn it into a green space at least for now.

And then if the house on the corner goes down, then we would have to make the council would make the decision on okay, what do we do?

Do we leave it as green space?

Do we turn it into a parking lot at that time?

What what do we decide to do?

I think the option is to also make it a parking lot now, right?

If we can make that effective for the police station.

Yes.

That was the intent.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any other questions from council?

Okay.

Okay.

I'll take a motion on item 4.4.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion that we approve resolution 2025-98, approving a real estate purchase contract for land at 174 East 100 North.

I have a motion by Chris.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that, Mr.

Mayor.

Second by Paul.

Any questions on that motion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh anything against?

I'm I have to think about this for a minute.

Yeah, I'll say any against.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh procedural question here, because this is a resolution that sits on the consent agenda.

And we didn't do roll call.

Should we have done roll call for that?

For the consent agenda.

For item 4.4, since we pulled it out of the consent agenda.

Uh teacher?

I would rather see a roll call.

Okay.

Okay.

So I'm going to say that the motion stands and we are going to perform a roll call on that.

I'll start with Michelle.

No.

Chris?

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh item 4.13 is consideration of resolution 2025-86.

That's pro uh appointing a planning uh commissioner to the Lehigh City Planning Commission.

Uh we have two alternates, uh, Ken Roberts and Bo Jones that have served as alternates for quite some time.

We're going to be moving them into the two vacancies we have on the Planning Commission.

Uh and Polo, who many of you remember, he ran for office.

I interviewed him, had a have had a couple of very good conversations with him and Lindsay Graham, who's uh as recently been uh volunteering in the city in some other positions.

They both have a had applied and I've selected them to fill in those alternate spots.

Okay.

That being said, council, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I do.

So in our municipal code, it does say that each member of the city council shall be officer authorized to submit names for candidates for the planning commission.

And also in the bylaws for the planning commission, if there is a res resignation that the member proposing to resign shall give reasonable written notice of such intent to the council, city council, planning commission and the mayor.

And then also the mayor will immediately notify the city council that a vacancy exists.

So I didn't know about this until I saw it on the agenda to vote for it.

And I'm just wondering the procedure.

So I know several people in the city that would be amazing for this job.

So if we want to submit this council wants to submit names for the planning commission, how does that happen?

Well leave that up to you.

But and historically, what we've done is there are there are appointees from the mayor.

And I've this the same procedures we followed for years.

I don't remember it being any different.

If you have objection to these two, we can certainly go into a closed door session and discuss that there.

I don't, I mean, we could.

It's a good question.

I don't know if that means that you just ask them to apply or you submit the names and then the mayor interviews them.

I don't think it changes the advising consent process.

But it you know, we can we can certainly figure out a way for you to submit those names.

Um but yeah, the way that with the state code grants the powers to the mayors, he would appoint, and then you certainly have the opportunity to not approve that appointment.

So I think it's probably just more a logistical question about how you get names that you would like to see considered even outside of the application process.

So yeah, but we could make that happen for sure.

In the future, yeah.

Um I just it'd be nice to have a broader range of I guess a pool of candidates to consider for the planning commission.

And I think it would have been nice to know about the rec resignation beforehand, but well, I interviewed all the applications we had on hand.

And both these were actually well, one of these came up from an earlier application process.

I don't really see the need to change the process now because it's one that's been established for years.

I would like to bring this to a vote, and if you want to vote against them, I think that's fine.

No, I this is the code allows another avenue, so I hope you can pursue that in the future.

Okay.

Well, that's fine in the future, but tonight I I'm not willing to change what we've done in the past.

So that being said, I'll be glad to take a motion on item 4.13.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2025-86 appointing planning commissioners to the Lehigh City Planning Commission.

Okay.

I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

A second.

Paul made the motion.

Heather.

Uh excuse me, Paul made the motion now.

Heather made the second.

I'll start the voting with Chris.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

Paul and Michelle.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item five, which is on our regular agenda.

And this is item 5.1.

This is a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments related to the issuance of water revenue bonds for acquiring and constructing secondary water meters.

There were, I think, 13.

I think there were 13.

We received 12 and then another one that came in late.

So these are this has to do with the project to install pressurized irrigation or meters to all pressurized irrigation connections.

This was mandated by the state a few years ago.

They've given us quite a bit of grant money and done these low interest uh loans.

This is a one percent loan.

It's about 1.6 million, but this should be the last round of funding needed to finish the whole project.

So I've gone through everything, but this is just uh part of the state's process is to send out those notices to all ratepayers to give them a chance to respond in writing or to at least notify them about the public hearing.

So there's not a vote on this, it's just a public hearing to receive comment.

Okay.

And that's what I mentioned.

We did receive some online comment.

There was 13 letters of receiving.

Yeah, 13.

Uh is there anybody here in the public who would like to make comment?

Okay, hearing none, we'll close that portion of the public hearing.

And we'll go to on to item uh 5.2.

Uh this is budget amendment number three.

Uh it comes in two parts.

Part A is public hearing.

Part B is consideration resolution 2025-90, adopting an amendment to the Lehigh City operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2025 and 26.

Yeah.

So we've done more budget amendments in the past couple months than maybe we normally have.

I wanted to kind of have a little bit of a clean off clean cutoff since we have a lot of turnover in the council.

I think most of these are straightforward.

I'll talk a little bit about that last one.

Um we have some projects to carry forward.

In other words, there are projects that were budgeted last year that are not finished.

So we're just budgeting the unspent money forward.

There are two recreation grants.

One is a matching grant, and we budgeted the matching funds, but we need to budget the revenue and the expenditure for uh the Shadow Ridge Park, the grant associated with that, and then we also have a grant from the state, I believe.

And so we're just authorizing that that to be spent.

There were two road impact fee projects, so these will be it'll be road impact fee monies that are spent for those, and uh those just needed to be added to the to the list of projects.

The fourth one is the police have gone for their car cameras, they have gone to a subscription model rather than us purchasing the cameras.

So in the past, fleet would purchase the cameras and install them, and then it would be part of the lease uh cost to the police department.

Now we're gonna move that cost to the police department since they'll be the ones paying for that contract.

So I think those are pretty straightforward.

The last one kind of came up last week.

We had a meeting, and you know what the fiber network that we have, one benefit of that will be for our utilities.

So the idea that we have the fiber that could go to all of our uh substations or water facilities and all those things will be uh uh a valuable use to them.

I think Dave Norman was talking about how you know right now we have a SCADA system that gives information, but like it might tell us if a door was opened or something like that.

Now with fiber, eventually we'll be able to see video and and all of those things.

So what this position uh really is related to, it's gonna be a position in IT, but it will be paid for with power uh with power funds out of the power department.

And their first project is gonna be to I'm gonna talk like a public works person, even though I don't really know what I'm talking about, but to help integrate that SCADA system using our fiber network to get all of those efficiencies going.

Did I say that right?

Okay.

Okay.

So and and I think we just decided we'd hopefully we can maybe do it now since it's not general fund money, it's not competing with police or anything else that we could we can just move ahead.

But that's that's what's on the amendment.

Any questions for Dean?

I I have one.

Just can you help me understand on the road impact fees why what our participation is with Pony Express Parkway?

Or what that two million dollars is for?

That I would hope Lawrence would maybe know the answer.

I think it's on our impact for C plan.

But I I don't know what our I don't know.

We have authorization to move forward on on the design.

So we do have a component that's pertaining to us.

Now I I Brad's not here, but uh I'll do my best.

He we usually it's like six or seven percent.

So that may be that percentage of what we're paying.

Okay.

Is that correct?

I believe.

Is that is that do you think that's correct?

I don't know.

I just got to know to put it on the uh on the amendment.

You just do what you are told.

Sometimes I see Pony Express, I just think Saratoga Springs.

So this is a budget, adding that in as I think.

On a road impact fee project.

Yeah, okay.

That's great.

That may be the total amount, and we need to have it on our list in the impact fee in order to charge it.

I think that's where we're at.

Is that I believe that he still doesn't.

I think I just got a notice that we needed to add this to our impact fee list of projects.

It is road in Lehigh, though.

It's not certainly 1900 South.

Is that better?

Oh, that's better.

Yeah, thank you.

So Lauren, would that go as well for 2300 West?

I mean, both of those I thought were funded by MAG, but we have but they weren't in the impact fee analysis that we did way back.

And we are updating our analysis right now, but that isn't done yet.

So these we actually are funding currently or ready to fund, and they're not in our budget currently.

Okay.

So what you're saying is Lehigh has a portion of both of those roads.

We have some obligation.

In order to use impact fees, it needs to be on the list.

Okay.

The new list, I guess it'd be forward.

Get more complex.

So Lauren, you may have said this now.

You just I got a question now after listening to you.

Is our portion just impact fees?

Yes.

Okay.

Well.

We had a big discussion about this a couple of weeks ago with our impact fee consultant.

I was using just our portion, and that didn't work very well because the way they assess the agreement, the impact fee, they take the big project and they show how much percentage we have.

And that was kind of getting construed because I was only using our percent.

Well, they would take 10 percent of that, because that's all our usage of it is.

So we if we use the big project, then we get 10 percent of that.

That usually gets down to our six or seven percent.

Does that make a lot of sense?

I get it.

Okay.

Yeah, I was assessing it a little different on 2300 West.

You went on you're going a long way to answer my simple question.

I am but it's a comp it's more complex than I even thought.

But I think we have it worked out now.

Yeah.

I just wanted to make sure it was impact fees being used for that.

So that is correct.

Okay.

But you can't use them or it would be difficult if it wasn't in our system.

If it wasn't in our in our list.

I understand.

Okay, thanks, Lauren.

All right.

Uh okay, we have to take uh let's see.

That's part A, so why don't you just sit down for a minute?

Is there anybody in the public who has any questions on this?

Or would like to make a comment on this?

Okay.

I'll close the public hearing portion.

That brings us to uh uh part B.

This is a consideration of the resolution.

Council.

If you have no questions, uh I'd like to take a motion on item 5.2B.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we pass that we approve resolution 2025-90, adopting an amendment to the Lehigh City operating and cat capital budget for fiscal year 2025 through 2026.

Okay, I have a motion by Chris.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And a second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion is given?

I'm gonna start the voting with Heather.

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

And Chris.

Yes.

Okay, that passes.

Before I go on to 5.3, Dean, I've got a question for you.

And if you want to I'm gonna back to 5.1 because I meant to bring this up.

I I read all 13 of those comments online.

And four of them were in support, and they understood how the how you know the loan worked and everything.

And uh one of them went into depth about uh the legislation that demanded us put in meters.

Uh but there were several that just said they were confused and they didn't understand.

Is there is there a mechanism that we have to help citizens understand, you know.

Yeah, it's one of those things.

We talk about it a lot here, so it's very straightforward, and then maybe if I didn't work for a city, I probably wouldn't pay very much attention either.

And then you get a notice in the mail, and then really the the confusion I think was around one.

I know metering pressurized irrigation is not popular with certain people, with some people, like they just and that's kind of out of our purview, right?

Like we there's there's reasons to do it.

Taken out of our hands.

It's gonna help cons conserve water, but whether the city likes it or not, we we we have to do it.

Um I saw a few comments saying, hey, we just we borrowed money last year for this.

Why are we borrowing more?

And you know, the answer to that is the states made waves of funding available.

We knew our project costs from the start, and that hasn't changed much, but the state made one round of funding available, and then fortunately they made a second round and now they've made a third round that's gonna cover between the grants and the loan, it's gonna cover you know 90 percent of the cost of which is a really big project to us.

Um there are people who are concerned about their water shares and things like that.

So those are global issues that I think people have had concerns over water always that maybe they uh wanted to share uh uh have an opportunity to to express that.

But um really the idea is hopefully people understand and how we get the word out is not the best communicator or the best PR person out there, but the idea is we've had a large project kind of imposed upon us.

The state has responded by funding about 70 percent of it through a grant and about 25 percent of it through some very low interest loans to to really ease the burden on us, where our out-of-pocket cost up front is only gonna be about five percent of the cost.

And we'll have to repay those loans, that's part of the cost, but compared to what it could have been.

And and then the long term is the idea is it's gonna save water, and there's few that's less water that we're gonna have to acquire in the future, so which could save millions of dollars.

So and it's gonna be paid back on a fee base system too, right?

Right.

And we have the whole process the whole concept of how do we I think people are anxious about what my rates are gonna be, how what how that's gonna that come about, but we've you know we've uh hired a consultant to help us with that.

But we really need to have kind of a season's worth of data before they can really do much work, and that's gonna take place over the next summer.

So I w I wonder, Jason, if we can have John Tiel kind of put more information out there to you know, I I don't know how short of knocking on everybody's doors and catching them home and explaining them.

It would be nice because there were those, as you said, who were just you know they were upset because the system has changed on them.

And I I understand that, right?

When I first connected to irrigation is a different deal, but it's been taken out of our hands.

But I think Jean Thiel can put something together and we can run it frequently to help people understand.

And I can even maybe write up something to give to Jean Till and as a starter point.

So one of the most interesting conversations I had was actually from a state, a phone call I received from a state legislator who had a child who lives in Lehigh and was really upset because they didn't like the meters going in.

And I had to remind the state legislator that it was the legislators that were causing us to do that.

So it was kind of interesting that she was unaware of that.

So would it be possible on notices?

I don't know if we'll send out more of these notices in the future or for other items.

If there is a QR code, a link they could go to a landing page where we could have video explaining almost a like you know, I would do a four statement for but I think that could help because this is the notice that's setting them off.

And I don't know if they're then going to see social media ad blast or something if they got the fur the only information they got was that notice.

But I don't know what's a good limitations you might have.

Okay.

I uh should have no thing.

By large the state kind of gives us that uh format that they want.

This is really a uh requirement of theirs to we normally wouldn't do that with uh with the loan, but okay.

But I think that's a great idea.

Okay.

Next time we're gonna have to do that.

When did you say that rate study was going this summer?

Well, we've hired somebody, they've done some preliminary work, but where they're at now is they can't really design rates until they have some data.

So we're installing I think uh Greg and TJ said we've installed like 4900 meters this year, and so there's still a process to get those hooked up to our billing system and all of that, and obviously people aren't using pressurized irrigation right now.

So hopefully we'll put together a uh data set, you know, next April through October or whatever.

We the the deadline to get the meters installed is 2030, so we're we're doing great.

And it's probably but it's probably gonna be look at data this year and then after that design a rate structure.

Okay.

Thank you, Dean.

Okay.

Moving on to 5.3, this consideration resolution 2025 96.

Approving of the 4 Bay Recreation uh area conservation easement located in lower provo, or excuse me, Pays and Kenya.

Sorry, mayor, because he's here.

Uh and containing approximately 471 acres of property.

Payson City is a grantor, and Lehigh City is the grantee.

So you walked in just in time.

I was already you have staff here though.

They were gonna cover for you.

Well my turn over when they get out.

So you can get up.

I'm excited to hear from you.

Mayor and council, or it's a pleasure to be here.

Uh we I am in in total uh totally in favor of the easement, the conservation easement, uh, or council passed that uh by a vote of four to nothing.

We had one council uh missing, but uh we're very very excited about it.

I would like to identify the people that are here.

Uh Adam Cowie is here, he's gonna explain a little bit uh about it.

He knows a heck of a lot more about it than I do.

Jill Spencer, our planning direct uh director, planning and zoning, Ryan uh uh Rowley, uh city councilman, and Dave Tucker, our city manager.

And since you didn't introduce yourself, this is Mayor Bill Wright.

He's one of my favorite people in all of Utah County, by the way.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate that very, very much.

And uh after we get through here, uh I've got something I'd like to present to you and the council.

Thanks, Mayor.

I will run through this really quick.

I just wanted to say thanks to uh Chris Conde and and Kim Struthers.

They came down and met with um our four-bay committee.

I serve on a citizen committee, I live in Payson, and uh this is a recreation area that I've enjoyed for for years with my family and friends.

Um we invited them to come down, they told us about some of the conservation easements that Lehigh had been working on and got us excited and and kind of steamrolled this.

And it's it's taken a little bit of time to get all of our ducks in a row, but but we're here and uh excited to uh help preserve and protect this property.

So um I will fly through this.

I know you guys have seen this and you've got a big agenda.

Um the four Bay area, it's 471 acres.

Um everything in the foreground here that you see in this in this photo um is is part of the four-bay area, beautiful location in in lower Payson Canyon.

Um there it is, X marks the spot.

And so if you're familiar with the Mapledale Scout Camp, uh this comes up just below Mapledale Scout Camp.

So if that helps orient you there a little bit.

So this is uh the orange area is is the boundary of the conservation easement, and then is adjacent just on the left side of the screen there is the Nebo Loop Road.

Uh some of that area in the green is Elk Ridge City Limits and then Payson City Limits in the yellow.

Um we uh right now have uh several miles of of mountain bike and hiking trails uh that traverse across four bay.

Um part of the history on this, it it's uh primarily was acquired by the city as a water resource.

Um there's uh an irrigation system that comes down from the canyon and uh a collection pond that you're seeing in this photo.

Um this was the forwardmost bay or reservoir, and that's where the four bay name came from.

And so um gave you a little bit of history there.

Uh it's it's again a beautiful piece of property.

Um unique characteristic about this location in Payson Canyon, it sits below the Forest Service gate.

And when they shut things off in the wintertime, Four Bay is still accessible.

And so year-round access uh to the trails there.

Again, another photo of of this in the summer.

Um and then fall is gorgeous.

Um then winter, we've actually the city has acquired a grooming uh machine, and they will groom the trails for recreational uses.

Uh earlier this year, the Payson City Council approved a mountain bike park that would be part of this, and this will be more of an official uh park in our master plan to the right there.

Um so just uh again lots of uses.

We've got some huge mountain bike enthusiasts and teams uh from the high schools in South Utah County that have used this.

Um lots of different recreational uses.

We're working on some equestrian trails that are specific for the area.

And I'm gonna jump way ahead and and just uh tell you thank you.

Um we've given you copies of um some of the the easements and things, uh rules, regulations that are are part of the document itself.

But uh appreciate your willingness to be um a leader in Utah County for conservation easements and protecting and preserving the open spaces for recreational uses.

So thank you.

And I know council member Rowley wanted to make a few comments, and so I'll turn this over to him.

Thank you.

Thank you, Adam.

Mayor and Council, thank you for your time tonight.

Uh I've served on the Payson City Council for two years.

This has been a Herculean effort to accomplish this.

Uh the current council and mayor have accomplished something that no other council could, and that's to vote in favor of protecting this area.

This is one of those few monumental decisions that we're able to make that hopefully 50, 80, 100 years from now, people in Payson and surrounding can come recreate here.

Uh why Lehigh, we trust you guys.

We believe you're your leaders in our county and in our state.

And you know as well as I do that once green space is gone, it's gone forever.

And so we wanted to vote to protect this to save it against the temptation of future councils to change this area to sell it and develop it.

And that's the purpose of this easement.

And we want you guys to be that that neutral third party that will shoot down any bad ideas that uh could damage this that could damage this area.

Uh it's nearly 500 acres.

It's one of the larger conservation easements in the state.

We want it to stay that way.

And the one of the most beautiful things about it is we're not just putting a fence around it and saying you can look at it, you get to use it.

It's a place for recreation of hiking and biking.

And so we want it to truly be an anchoring point for our city and our state.

We want this to be a premier recreation area.

And so, Lehigh, we are we are trusting you with this, and we thank you for your time and consideration and and and holding this for the future.

And we will always share something very special with Lehigh, and that's the fact we can both say that Footloose was filmed in our cities.

But Lehigh Mayor Council, thank you guys for this.

This is very important to our community as a whole uh to have somewhere safe to recreate free recreation for our youth and and everyone up.

And so really thank you guys so much for your time tonight.

And I'll I'll correct you on one thing briefly.

You're the one who gets to deny any potential you know development.

You get to it.

We're just your backstop.

And and that's exactly right, but we want to eliminate that uh that temptation from future councils in Payson.

And I know that you'll help keep them in check if any bad ideas were to rise to the top.

So thank you.

I'd like to a little bit.

Yeah.

We'd love you to.

Ryan said we trust you.

Okay.

A little bit of trepidation.

We do trust you.

Uh I am sorry for being a little bit late.

Uh I was uh at uh Julie Fulmer's farewell.

Just a few miles to apologize to her for not being able to.

Well, you've got responsibilities here, and she understands that.

But uh again, we we uh are are very trusting and uh glad to have this this type of uh protection for a very very special place.

Uh since it is Christmas and uh we trust you and uh we appreciate you, I'd like to give you a uh present.

Uh it it is uh some uh chocolate cherries, dried cherries, yogurt cherries from uh uh Pace uh Cherry Center, which is Pays and Fruit Growers.

So uh we appreciate you.

May I approach?

Yes, please.

You don't expect me to share those, do you?

It's up to you.

These guys need to be.

You know, I will say this about Payson.

Uh I'm gonna say a couple of things.

First of all, they have the best salmon supper uh, you know, imaginable.

You know, uh the mayor here has invited me and my wife there, I think what probably eight years running now or something, and we went every time.

Yep.

And uh guys, I'm not a salmon eater, and I eat their salmon.

I just like it's just fantastic what they do.

You're supposed to keep that under wraps because it sells out quick, Mayor.

Well, it's it's sold out in about five minutes.

Yeah.

Wow.

Yeah, you want to watch for it and be ready.

That's good.

So but it is an awesome event.

And uh just a word to you know our acreage we've preserved it's around 900 acres.

It's uh, you know, it's it's really uh a blessing for us.

We've had to work.

Uh it is 900, right?

I want to Yeah, okay.

Somebody I thought somebody was disagreeing with me over there.

But you know, we've had to communicate with Draper on uh on one issue that came up, and they were just they had our backs, and so we plan on doing the same thing here.

So I guess there are backstop will be yours because we understand how important this is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I make a comment real quick?

Yes.

Um so when this first started, my brother-in-law, and so I'd like to see if Mayor Wright would help me, but uh Devin Weaver, who was uh I believe on the committee, right?

Um invited us down and uh um and he he's teased me a lot about Lehigh City and how different we are from Payson and you know we're not the small town that Payson is and used to be, right?

Payson's growing, but maybe not quite as fast as Lehigh right now.

Uh huh.

We had one more officer than you guys, but sadly that's not the case.

But if you if you could just remind Devin that Lehigh has some good things about it and that you can trust Lehigh, I'd I'd appreciate that.

Maybe give them a an assignment or two that maybe isn't the funnest thing to do, and just keep them on his toes if you don't mind.

That would be appreciated.

So thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you and can and good luck with it.

I'm glad you're doing this.

I think this is a wonderful idea.

Souncil.

Uh I'll take a motion on item 5.3.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve resolution 2025-96 approving the four-bay recreation area conservation easement located in Lower Pays and Canyon and continuing approximately 471 acres of property.

I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that, Mr.

Mayor.

And a second by Paul.

Are there any questions on that motion as given?

Hearing none, I think I'm starting the voting with uh Paul.

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

Chris.

Yes.

And Heather.

Yes.

Okay.

There you go.

It's a visual.

Okay.

Item 5.4.

And drive careful heading all the way back to Port Basin, right?

It is December, but there's no snow on the roads.

So item 5.4 is consideration of ordinance 67-2025 approving the downtown revitalization plan and state street stationary plan, including parts of Main Street and State Street.

I know you've got uh consultant here.

If you're gonna do it.

Yep.

He's looking at you, like he's looking at you too.

Where do we start?

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's great.

You can tag team this.

I don't care.

Yeah.

And I I was gonna say I don't think I need to introduce Sam.

I think most of you have met Sam during the course of this process.

They've been great.

Landmark has done a great job on the plan.

We really appreciate their work.

But yeah, I'll let Sam walk you through a brief presentation and then field any questions.

If that doesn't work, we can pull it up on mine.

Hopefully it will should it have come up by now?

Yeah.

Okay.

This might be a short presentation.

We'll get it figured out.

I know.

We've never had this problem before.

Really?

Okay.

That's not true.

Trying to find the email where you sent it.

There we go.

Okay.

You're switching to your computer.

Yeah.

That'll be fine.

Maybe one number out of date on it, but that's okay.

Okay.

And then um can we do like a full full screen?

Yeah.

Full screen.

Because it's a PDF, yeah.

Yeah.

Didn't work.

There we go.

Okay.

Thank you, Kim.

Appreciate it.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um it's a pleasure to be with you uh this evening again and uh to uh present this uh updated draft plan to you for the downtown revitalization plan and historic state street 100 east uh station area plan long title um I'm gonna do a quick uh overview of the plan for the benefit of everyone in the room.

Um I'm gonna try to breeze through this really fast and then uh we'll talk about our uh what we've been up to since we last met in the joint meeting together with the planning commission so this plan uh is a uh visionary plan for the downtown and station area uh in question at uh on his historic state street um and as such I think it's important to ground ourselves in the fact that it is it is intentionally visionary it is looking up 20 plus years um it's intended to be a guiding document for you um it's not ordinance um but should uh give some good direction to staff as they pursue future projects and ideas for shaping of the downtown area um some of those elements some of the elements highlighted in the plan will take a significant amount of time to become reality such as the station itself um no proposed idea here is intended to bring a sweeping change um incremental changes expected and desired so um and so as you're going along through the years uh the hope is that you will uh see what's working what's not and pivot as as necessary um and so uh being a visionary document a plan high level planning document this uh the concepts here are intended to be illustrative um and as you uh

Um proposed idea here is intended to bring a sweeping change.

Um incremental change is expected and desired.

So and so as you're going along through the years, uh the hope is that you will uh see what's working, what's not, and pivot as necessary.

Um being a visionary document, a plan high-level planning document, this uh the concepts here are intended to be illustrative.

Um, and as you uh move into implementation of certain projects, precise details will inevitably need to be worked out.

So the plan is divided into six chapters.

Um an introduction, a uh chapter that looks at downtown holistically, uh, a chapter on main streets main street specifically, another chapter on the station area specifically, uh chapter on transportation improvements across the downtown area that are recommended, and then culminating in an action plan for implementing some of the ideas of the plan.

Um the plans built on these eight guiding principles, which were derived from what we had heard through our public process.

Um the impact the input that we received through our early public meetings and survey informed the direction that we took in building and developing this plan.

Uh the plan looks at uh downtown in as a series of districts.

So uh most notably the downtown core in the red, uh, the station district in the yellow on the north between state and the freeway, uh, and the what we call the mills district at the east end of Maine by the roller mills, and then some transition areas as well as the rodeo grounds area.

Um but the first three are the ones that kind of have the big ideas.

Uh the downtown core, uh just some of the big ideas here, uh the development activity in that in the core has some limitations.

Uh the size of lots and the existing infrastructure is very challenging.

Um so the primary uh recommended recommendations for this area are to improve public space to spur interest in visitation.

And that's through promoting a more walkable main street as well as uh creating public open spaces and programming those with activities that draw people in.

Um property owners uh we've worked with a few uh in conversation throughout this process.

Uh they're looking for increased flexibility around uh issues such as parking and utilities in order to make things work.

Um and so the plan explores ways to do that.

Um and then uh the plan also recommends minor updates to the land use regulation and design guidelines for the downtown core area, and uh also an expansion of economic development programs and uh marketing to uh help the the area thrive and and draw interest.

The mills district uh is a little bit different than the downtown core.

It has potential to be a greater physical change.

Um and the kind of big idea here is to allow through the through land use regulation the introduction of mixed use commercial slash residential to help put people within walking distance of the downtown area.

So this is to help drive the foot uh the foot traffic, uh the businesses that we're looking for in the downtown area, the small scale retail need to thrive.

Um also recommends updated design guidelines for this area, and um, as I mentioned, is is really getting at all altering uh regulatory environment rather than you know, active market participation and trying to transform this area actively.

It's more of a passive approach to uh see what this area could potentially become.

Um then third, the station area.

This is the most challenging district uh due to a lot of needed infrastructure.

Um so uh before meaningful development can occur, uh we've identified the one the transit station needs to be coordinated with UTA and UDOT.

Um they are still in flux on what kind of station this is going to be.

Um we've acknowledged that in the plan.

Uh street connectivity is gonna be crucial.

There's only really one way in, one way out uh currently into this area.

Um there is a railroad turnaround that needs to be moved and utilities may need expansion.

So there's some big concepts here for this area to be a supportive transit-oriented sort of district for the station.

Um, but you know, getting that list checked off first will be will be critical.

Um then from there developments for this area is envisioned at a compact scale to support the station and the in the little commercial district that's up there right now.

And it's part of that also looking at improving the state street environment to uh bridge the divide the state street creates between the neighborhoods to the south and and uh the station area itself.

So I think you're all familiar with the plan.

You've hopefully had a chance to uh look at some of the updates we've made uh since it uh came to you from the planning commission.

Uh some update on our progress since um I've got just a uh public engagement summary here.

This summarizes all all the uh engagement that we conducted throughout this process.

And uh most importantly, that was very foundational to this uh building this plan was that statistically valid survey that Y2 Analytics prepared that had over 500 uh responses.

Um we did put the uh draft plan out online uh with a questionnaire to garner some response from the public.

Um the correct numbers here is actually 63.

That's an out of date number there.

Um but it was up from 21 after we did some additional advertising at the request of the planning commission.

Um the comments were they generally centered around uh concerns over the addition of housing units to the area generally and the traffic that that might generate as well as um some concerns around you know changes on Maine and how that might affect traffic.

But there's general support for bringing new establishments downtown, uh the active transportation improvements that the plan recommends and uh the transit stationary improvements and the historic preservation recommendations.

So you know, a little bit of a mixed bag, but uh you know, comparing that to what we heard from the survey, which was you know that residents are interested in having uh restaurants, entertainment, retail shopping, and public gathering space and green space that they're looking for a family friendly community centered downtown, and uh they're interested in this idea of uh being able to live in in you know that people can live down here, be part of this mixed uh residential commercial environment.

Uh these are things that we've you know uh built a lot of the ideas in the plan around and and feel that we have had the community support on those.

Um the uh transportation will continue to be a battle that you will face, and I think as you try to make improvements on Maine, it will be a continued conversation.

The community was definitely split on um what they'd like to see, you know.

Uh everyone wants to be able to park here easily, but they also want to be able to walk here easily.

So it was kind of a the um battle trying to balance those.

Um so as I mentioned that strong resident preference for the mixed use and dining is accounted for in the plan and is there to kind of increase um in order to uh to make those viable, uh that's why the recommendations are there for additional housing.

Um the our analysis does show there is ample parking for downtown, uh though it may not always be as convenient as visitors would like.

Um we ultimately favored main street walkability due to resident preference for that, and um you know the concepts that are represented for changing Main Street will require obviously a lot of coordination and further engineering design analysis to get the right fit for every every square foot out there.

Um but ultimately the long-term vision that's being proposed here is to shift some of the regional pass-through traffic away from Main Street to the other regional routes, um, such as Pioneer Crossing and 21st.

And uh just uh final note uh the key to remember here is that the key the plan visualizes the end of the road.

Uh lots of opportunity for you to evaluate and adjust along the way.

So since we met, uh there were uh a number of uh comments that were made in the joint meeting uh a couple months ago.

Uh we uh had a commercial overlay on 100 East that we removed at your recommendation.

Um we also uh made some minor updates uh that you see listed here.

I think some of the more notable ones uh acknowledging the possibility of light rail in the station area, uh adding language encouraging home ownership, uh adding language uh encouraging more you know, the need for coordination and analysis for the transportation improvements, and uh probably most notably here at the bottom uh recommending a reallocation of residential unit caps to these district areas rather than removing those caps.

Kim had kind of identified some areas in town where there's an excess, I guess, in the CAP unit numbers, and so we were kind of shifting those around is kind of the the proposal.

I don't know if there's any more if you want to say about that.

But okay.

Um the plan also uh took around with the DRC.

Uh so staff's had a chance to review this thoroughly.

And the main thing that came out of that uh round of review was uh concern still over kind of this unit count idea that was expressed in the plan.

So we've rephrased everything there is these are up to scenarios, which is what they were all along.

Um to say, you know, this is we did we looked at these these unit counts for analysis purposes, so under ideal conditions this is what could be supported.

Um but in order to get there, we have to acknowledge the utility constraints and those have to be met before we can get there.

So the language has been updated to reflect that.

Um and then some minor uh refinements, I guess, if you will, um, that were pointed out by the DRC group as well.

So that is an overview of where we have been.

You got anything to add, Kim?

Council.

Any questions?

You just go back to that slide that showed the changes that were implemented.

I just want to make sure I caught all those.

Yes, right.

Um more back.

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Perfect, thank you.

Yep.

Um I just have one comment, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I thank you for all the work that you and the advisory committee and Kim and your staff and and all that participated in this and the public.

Um one thing that I like that you said at the very beginning is that this is a visionary document.

Um so even with a motion to pass this tonight or approve it, um, it doesn't mean that it keeps or restrains any future council from looking at it, making changes, things like that.

And so I think it's uh I again I appreciate the the terminology used at the beginning to help describe this document.

And I too hope that there's very good uh very good um components of this, I hope that are implemented.

Um but also that it's it's nice to know that other eyes will see it and uh they can make adjustments or changes or whatever they deem appropriate at that time to do with it.

So thank you again for your work on it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council, any other questions.

I have some questions.

Um so I do have still have a lot of concerns.

So tell me it's a guiding document.

But sometimes we get stuck in this mindset that plans are set in stone.

Um so as far as implementation, I mean, how is this what effect is this plan gonna have going forward?

Yeah, as far as as far as regulatory, it it's not a regulatory document, but it does have an implementation section at the end, and it gives you know a whole list of things that here's you know, if you want to implement this, these are the you know, and it's prioritized highest medium, low, and it gives kind of time frames.

Um so yeah, uh uh i if you like the direction that this plan is gonna take us, then that would be, you know, as staff, we will start working on as soon as you know, once this is adopted, we would take that implementation plan and set some goals each year or you know, and starting to do that.

Okay, so this will direct your work staff's work.

Yeah, it kind of directs the staff's work to and and uh as an example, for instance, um some of the recommendations say look at ordinance, right?

The current land use ordinance zoning ordinance.

And so Kim and a staff would make a draft, bring it back to you, and you'd have further discussion on the details of whether that ordinance meets the intent that you would like it to have.

So ultimately that's the binding thing.

Um this plan is recommending that you make that alteration essentially.

That's just an example.

Sorry, sorry, you know.

Um so I I've talked to some residents and business owners in the area, and they they have concerns, especially um with some of the plans for um the roads.

Um give an example, oh, Main Street is a great example, getting rid of the left turn lane.

And immediately they're like, oh, that's gonna back up traffic.

Um so those kind of things how would they come forward in you know, if we don't agree with that?

How do we stop that, you know?

Um there's some roads where it's the bike boulevard where you're gonna get the same issues that 700 South is experiencing the residents, you know, can't park in front of their house, they gotta park in the middle of the street kind of thing.

So how do those kind things come about?

Because I wasn't around when that was approved.

So I'm just wondering how that came to be and um then also well, yeah, just answer that.

Uh you want to I'll start.

Okay.

Um I I do think there has been a little bit of misunderstanding from some of the comments I've seen about the main street concept in that there's this impression that there won't be any left turns on Maine.

And that's well, in that section.

Yeah.

Yeah, and and and the cross section is taken at the middle of the block, not necessarily at the intersection that's represented in the plan.

So I think that's just a limitation on our graphic abilities to show everything.

Ultimately, you know, moving forward, a concept's gonna go through a very rigorous engineering exercise.

And um that's gonna be the the staff working together to make sure that it the street's still meeting your needs in that that regard.

But yeah.

But I would just foresee, you know, any major change it would be probably a while down the road when the road needs to be reconstructed or repaved, or that's when we would probably look at the plan and and we you know it would have to be something that we'd budget for and plan and there would be you know design done at that point, which is kind of what Sam was saying that that would all have to be vetted.

These are some ideas of you know how you could the goal on you know, the whole reason that some of that area could be eliminated is to increase the pedestrian space on Main Street.

Now if it yeah, whether it works or how it works, this plan doesn't get into those details.

It just says, hey, it might be a good idea if there's a way to increase pedestrian space on Main Street, here's one way you could do it, and then you know, widen back out at the intersections.

Uh but that would all have to be, you know, part of a future public improvement project that you know, where we're rebuilding or kind of rethinking Main Street.

I think it would be a major project that the council would have a lot of input and say on, and we'd have to vet it through engineering and yeah, th this doesn't lay out the final design by any means.

So and would that I mean this kind of goes back to development agreements before staff start spending time on that.

I would hope that you'd come to the council and at least get three that say, yeah, we like that idea first.

Um I guess there's some great things in here, and there's some not great, my opinion.

I appreciate your work though.

Um I'm just wondering is this something that is amendable without going through the entire process again, or would it be better um to table it for the new mayor and council coming in to look at it and get their opinions going forward to be implementing, you know, have a say in that too.

Um definitely I'd rather table it, but yeah, yeah, and that's up to your decision tonight.

But definitely this plan can be amended just like our transportation plan, the land use plan.

These plans are all you know open to change and and revision as we I guess grow and um develop over the years and we might change our mind on some of this stuff, but it can definitely be changed.

And this isn't subject like the land use element to the twice a year, like if there's something in here that somebody doesn't like or where we want to put an update in here, we can do that at any time.

So and that goes for the station area plan as well, or is that something that's submitted and then it's done?

Yeah, we do have to get that certified through MAG and the state, and so I think if we were to make changes to that, we just need to make sure it still complies with the requirements of the state.

They have certain uh or pieces of information that you have to have in the station area plan part of it, but but it definitely is amendable up we can update that part as well.

Is there a deadline for that?

Uh no, no.

There was a deadline if you have a an existing transit station, which you know, Thanksgiving Point is our only one.

We had that plan done years ago.

If it doesn't have existing transit, you just have to do a plan at some point.

So yeah, this we're we're not under the gun.

If this rolls into the next year, that would be okay from a timing standpoint.

Okay.

And if it um comes back to be amended for on certain parts, would that we just look at the action plan and amend that section or I think any of it could be yeah, the the text, the graphics, the implementation section.

If we want to change priorities, what we feel like we want to focus on next.

Yeah, and then if we wanted to add things that weren't addressed in here.

Because I think some things were left out that could have been looked at, but would we have to go through we want to have to go through this whole process again, right?

We it would just be more of an update.

This this was this we had a plan that was done in 2007 and this was a major be basically a new plan.

We we liked parts of the old plan.

We kept you know some of the ideas in there.

But I would think in you know, say in six months or a year, even two years down the road, if you wanted to change things, it we'd just treat it more like an amendment to this plan versus going through this whole big public process.

What have we been at this a year, year and a half ish?

Yeah.

Yeah, it would be more like what you would see when we amend our general plan, you know, periodically it would it would be a two-month process.

And you would give us direction, we'd prepare a draft, bring it through the planning commission, and then you would vote on it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mayor, could I comment?

Yes, please.

Just obviously uh traffic is one of the biggest features of this.

As you heard, I think that it's predicated on some of that east-west getting elsewhere.

Whether that happens or not is a is a big deal.

And so we'll be into that process.

So that is from my standpoint, that's one of the biggest issues here from an engineering standpoint is the traffic, and particularly in the mills area, because it's right near that congestion area at 850 east in the in the freeway.

Sorry, one quick question.

You talked about um increasing the density caps and moving density from other parts.

What other parts of the city you're looking to move it from?

I think the one that we were referring to is the um Pioneer Village overlay that we we did away with earlier this year.

So that uh, you know, we have to leave some of those units.

It was 500 units, and we have to leave some of those there, but the idea was, you know, some of the I guess I don't know if you want to call it extra, but the density that would have that we had allocated there could potentially go to some of these areas.

So that's I think the main one that we haven't really changed anything else on our land use plan.

So and that would be something you'd bring later, Kim, once you've worked out a specific number, right?

Okay, bring it later.

So is that my understanding is you look at specific areas and see if the infrastructure can support it in this area or that area.

So Lauren, I can you do that?

Just move numbers from clearover in this part of Lehigh over to another part of Lehigh or I think when you did that, it'd be like anything else we do with the general plan.

We'll look at that from an infrastructure camp standpoint, both all the utilities and roads.

Yeah, that area can support it now.

If we're moving it now, we need to look at that.

It'll be a general plan amendment, right?

Okay, isn't that correct?

So it's a good place to take it from, but no, you can't automatically just plug it in and say it'll work.

You gotta look okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Are there anybody who would like to make public comment on this tonight?

Okay, saying none.

Oh, there we go.

Don't be slow to raise your hand.

We're just gonna move forward.

All right, my name is Brett Rollins.

Um I appreciate the efforts that are being made to um to come up with a plan, but I would like to express uh concern.

Um specifically about the housing.

So um the sentence here says the community desire for a mixed-use dining and retail in the downtown area.

We'll need increased foot traffic to be viable, which is why housing is suggested to be developed in the area as well.

Uh I think putting in housing will only bring more traffic to the area, and that's the problem that we're trying to solve.

Uh so I think that's a move backwards.

We need parking, not housing.

We're talking about Lehigh.

This is not a metropolitan urban downtown area like Salt Lake or Denver.

People are not going to live here and walk.

People drive to downtown to run errands and to use city facilities like the library and the recenter and stuff.

So people are going to drive there.

I don't think people are going to live downtown.

That's just gonna make a bigger problem.

The other uh pro the other concern I have is that it says that um only 0.5% of Lehigh was represented in the survey.

So stated another way 95.5% of Lehigh residents are not represented in that survey.

So I find it interesting that in the presentation it said there was a strong public preference for downtown housing and mixed use.

Well, we only talked to five point five percent of the people.

Uh I think if you go do the survey again with a larger group, you'll find that most people disagree with putting housing downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Um Kaylin David, or Osborne, sorry.

Um so there's some issues around traffic, additional housing units and parking issues.

I feel like these issues should take more time to look to be looked over and consider before passing, even if it's just considered visionary, like you said, Chris.

Um so I'm asking that the council table this request to further discuss and resolve some of these different issues because there's no rush.

We're not in a race with any other city, so we should take our time and have this presented again next year for the upcoming uh new mayor and council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

James Harrison.

Um I I just wanted to uh express uh a couple of concerns about the proposal, and I appreciate it's it's visionary and it's conceptual at this moment, and we can always amend it.

Um I think the previous points were were spot on with with traffic.

I think it's pretty rare for someone currently living downtown to to live, work, shop, and manage that for 12 months downtown, even if the weather permitted it.

Um I don't think the current structure of downtown would be very uh feasible for what is envisioned in the plan.

And one phrase in the plan, and I don't know if it's been removed in the most recent iteration was the the reduced parking options, I think, or reduced parking solutions was the wording.

Um we're a driving city, and we probably always will be, and so if we if we want to make it walkable, that that's great, but we also have to make it um uh parkable as well.

And and paid parking options and reduced um parking standards for businesses are only going to make traffic worse.

Um I do support the the state street uh revitalization.

I think that's an important area in in Lehigh.

I think we've underutilized.

Uh I think the one the one condition I think that we should maintain right now, State Street is refreshingly not backed up most of the time.

I I travel on that road almost daily, and it's um you know higher speed.

Um I'd like to see that maintained um as a as an artery for an option if if I-15 is backed up or or any of the other major roads.

Um but otherwise the the state street kind of commercial revitalization, I think is uh is a good start for this particular plan.

But um wholesale, I think it would be good if the council and the mayor can consider um uh pushing this to the next year just to consider more options.

I think if there were a few tweaks here and there, I think it would be fine, but I think uh for me personally, I think the majority I'd still like to look at, and I wouldn't want to waste uh Sam's time and the effort that's gone into this to to approve something and then have it go back almost completely to the drawing board.

So um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Other comments.

Hi Keith Campbell, I just uh wanted to reiterate that I agree with maybe pushing this back.

I'm hearing some things that I'd like to get more involved in to um uh questioning on the traffic, the parking.

And so I would just also like to voice my opinion that I think it should be tabled and uh revisited in the new year.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any other comments or questions?

Chris, I thought you started to say something now.

I'm good.

Okay, I'll take them.

I'll ask a question to start out, Kim.

Um what's why we talk about what the downside is of not having this vision?

What's the downside of not doing anything?

Um why are we doing this?

What's the intent from the state to have this through?

Um I I get, and I think most residents I talk to would like to have downtown be a destination with residents or with uh restaurants and places to go, things to do, and that's not what it is right now.

So I guess speak to that, like what why are we doing this?

What what's the hope that's gonna come from this?

I'll take a shot and then Sam if you want to jump in.

Yeah, I think really we're just trying to decide what is what do we want our downtown to be.

Do we do we keep it car-centric, which I don't disagree?

You know, I don't think we expect everyone to ride their bike and walk everywhere.

I think if we can reduce those trips, even if it's by a small percentage, 10% or 20%, you know, is a is a worthy goal, but it but you've got to start somewhere, right?

You can't um we we have a very auto-dependent infrastructure and design other than the older historic part of Main Street that's been there for you know almost 200 years.

Um I think this is the attempt of how do we create a place where people want to be, not where you have to be because this is where City Hall is and you have to come down to pay your bill or whatever it is.

Um but yeah, what what is it that makes people want to spend more time, shop more?

I mean, we're trying to I guess create a very livable um downtown for our city and the and the stationary plan is a requirement.

It there's there isn't a deadline of this year like some cities are under right now.

Um but eventually we have to decide anywhere where there's a planned transit station, the state has asked or required that cities take an uh a really good look at those areas because land use has a huge impact on whether the transit is gonna be successful or not.

Um again, how desirable it is, whether you like getting off of that station, what you see when you get off and how what your experience is.

So yeah, uh that's what we're trying to do is is what's the the best environment we can create for our downtown.

And I think you know what we've done with our police station, some of our own city projects is uh is a good example of a direction that we want to continue to go.

We have you know parallel on-street parking, which I know or excuse me, perpendicular, I know that was a little bit of a debate whether that works or not on First East, but those are the types of things versus you know if I don't know if some of you remember the original design for the police station was the parking lot would have been out front, the building would have sat in the back, like you would traditionally see in a very suburban area.

Same thing with our new city hall, you know, it could have been situated in the middle of the block with just parking out along the streets.

I think we've seen some really good.

I think from the 2007 plan, it's been slow, but when we redid Main Street, which Mayor Johnson had a huge part of that, we re-envisioned, you know, if you think about the old Main Street, which maybe it's been too long for you to remember, but it was really ugly.

Yeah, yeah.

And you think about you know, even you know, those physical improvements, how it's improved our downtown.

I think you know, it's it we haven't I don't think quite turn the corner to where we really start getting a lot of synergy.

Uh the Porter's Place building.

I know that maybe people have differing opinions, but I think that is a good thing.

The bakery rebuilt.

We just reviewed a concept for the corner piece um across from the colonial house, the old colonial house, to do a similar building to the Porter's place.

So I I think there's some synergy building, and that's what we want to continue to build and make our downtown a really nice unique place.

I think Saratoga, Eagle Mountain, some of these cities don't have any sense of a downtown and the history that we have.

We want to preserve the history.

I think that's why we did away with the first East commercial.

We don't really plan to see major and when we talk about adding housing, it's what I would maybe call gentle density in the plan.

We're not proposing six-story, eight-story buildings.

We keep the height limit at three stories throughout the downtown so that it doesn't start to be overpowering and we turn to more of an urban versus you know small town.

So I don't know.

Maybe that's too long of an answer, but that's what our that's what our vision is for, and that's what we're trying to accomplish with the plan.

That's good.

Is this been a year and a half in the works?

Yeah.

If I might just add a little bit more.

Hearing the the vision from the community that they want downtown to be just a place for them to come to bring their families together, to have things to do.

That's a great aspiration, and many communities have that.

There are many communities across America with very successful historic downtown.

Um study of those to look into what has made those successful is kind of hinged on three key components.

Uh one is getting people there within walking distance.

So that's the live the that's the housing bit that we've discussed.

Two is physical improvements, uh, which is sort of the build that you will come or they will come sort of thing where you're act actively building and constructing the public environment to be very attractive and and sort of a magnet that way.

Um three is programming the activities that you're hosting downtown.

There's sort of the three main components that then result in success.

Um communities have done this with only one or two of those.

Um it's not to say that you do have to do all three of those to have to kind of achieve this vision.

Um but we have to kind of take an approach in this plan to balance and and and create a balance of those those pillars, if you will.

Um, because it is very difficult to lean in on one all all in.

And if it doesn't work, you know, you've spent a lot of money.

So that's kind of the the reasoning behind why we're here, I think, you know, to that point of trying to create a family friendly and attractive sort of destination that the community wants and best practice on what we understand as urban designers and how to make that happen.

So, Kim, I'm gonna ask a question, and this probably directed you because you know as much about this as I do.

The state, the State Street project that TOD is really, you know, I think that's that's visionary, but it's a really good vision of what has to happen.

You know, I live I I work right up there in that area.

Yeah.

There's a lot of people up there that would like to see that improved.

Because there's a lot of vacant space, and some of it is just it it's ready for some kind of development to take place up there.

Uh a lot of people would like to see some secure direction from the city as to how that how that should plan, because right now you don't want to plan it piecemeal or you'll never get to where you're trying to go, and I don't know how you're gonna address that issue.

The second issue, which is even a more difficult one, is the fact that the state has not been able to commit to bringing transit down around the point of the mountain.

And that's as you know, that's been a big battle and a big concern of mine trying to hold their feet to the fire from commitments they made back in 2009.

But I'm even more concerned about that because of a couple letters I received last week, forwarded them on to uh Jason uh from the governor's office indicating that well, there's probably not gonna have transit like this down in Utah County until the citizens down here start to invest in a transit tax.

What they seem to have forgotten is Utah County was the first county to impose the fifth fifth, which means 20% of sales tax is all dedicated to transit in Utah County.

And I don't know why they don't seem to know that, but there's somebody needs to pick that ball up and uh run with it if you will.

Uh because there is funding available to s to start encouraging transit.

I don't see this area down here developing, but with transit, I think it will develop pretty similar to how you have it here in the plan.

So I guess that really wasn't a question.

That was more of a statement.

I agree.

Yeah.

If you want to respond to that, that's fine.

No, I I do agree.

And it is a challenge.

You've got a lot of smaller parcels.

We're actually working on our mixed use code and how we regulate mixed use.

How do you require that mix of uses when you have you know maybe a single parcel that wants to develop and it's on a half an acre versus assembling you know two or three or five acres where you could actually do a larger project.

So we're trying to solve some of that where you could have some requirements.

You know, if it's over a certain size, then you could actually, or if it's on state street, if it has frontage on a main street, then you would expect some commercial space on the ground floor, things like that.

So yeah, we've had a few minor projects up in that area, but I and I think we could do some things that would set it up for better transit when at whatever point transit actually makes it here.

I think that is a huge issue.

We've got to we've got to get the transit here before too much transformation will ever take place there.

But but I think we can prepare for it and you know, even the little bit of development that we'll see up there until transit's here, if we can pivot it away from you know purely the car-centric model, try and make it a little bit more walkable and get that little bit of mixed use started.

I think it'll be better in the long run.

Yeah.

Yeah, like I say, I think I think it's good it is visionary, but I think it's an important part of the plan up there because I I do think that's more of a blank pallet than you have anywhere else in town.

Any other questions or comments?

Council, I'll entertain a motion on item 5.4.

I'll make a motion.

Um I move that we table item 5.4 um consideration of ordin ordinance 67-2025, approving the downtown revitalization plan and state street station area plan, including parts of Main Street and State Street.

Um we have a new council coming on board, and though considerable time was spent on this, it may not be the vision or the direction that the new council, which the people elected um agree with.

So I think they have should have time to look at it and have input.

Okay, I have a motion by Michelle.

Do I have a second?

Can I ask a question?

Uh well, let's see if there's a second first.

Okay.

Sorry.

We can table it or we could amend it later, I think.

Okay, that dies from a lack of a second, Chris, to your question.

I I guess I'm confused um as to why we would table it or even deny it.

Uh I I do understand a new council's coming in.

Um but as it I I believe it was stated fairly clearly that this is a visionary document.

Um session in January for the new council.

You guys could put this on the agenda and say, you know what, do away with it.

Be done.

We don't want anything to do with it.

And you can toss away 18 months worth of work and however much money has been spent to and and all the advisory uh committee meetings and uh the public hearings that have been held and people have come and looked at the presentations and stuff and say, hey, it's done.

We don't want it.

Um that doesn't cost anything to do that, do that first thing in January.

Um the the beauty of our of our of our system, in my opinion, of the elected officials is that one, we're representative government, two, if if we're waiting for a majority, a solid majority of people to come together on something this complex, this big, this broad, and say, yeah, we by 70 percent agree with this, do it.

It's not gonna happen.

You you've gotta you've got to start with something.

And the new council, don't be afraid to start with something.

This is a visionary document.

You can change whatever you want to change.

That's why you're vote that's why you're elected in.

Don't be afraid to review something that's visionary.

Have the guts to go and change it if you think something needs to be changed, but if you only think there's a few tweaks that need to be done to it, for heaven forbids pass the thing, get together, make the tweaks, continue on.

Or as you get together in February to set goals for you and staff in the city and for all the residents that you represent.

If if the planning department or the city don't did not have direction to go in, this is a document that helps give you that direction.

And you can come back and say, you know what, we don't want to make that change.

That's too expensive.

That's too invasive.

That's too whatever.

That's fine.

Don't do it then.

You're not committed to this in any way.

But at least start with something.

I think that we're afraid of the unknown, or we're afraid that, oh my goodness, this current council's off their rocker, and they're gonna make some change.

We're not making any change.

We're just approving a visionary document potentially that gives you some guidance that the city and the residents have spent 18 plus months trying to develop and tried to come to some sort of an agreement on.

And I think to just vote in fear or to think that a new council is going to come in and I I don't know what what you think, but I mean, for heaven forbid, if you want, scrap the whole thing in January.

Next meeting, just do it.

Just scrap it.

But I I don't see why we're afraid to just pass something.

It's a visionary document.

Give the people an opportunity to see something, give applicants, future applicants, an opportunity to see the vision of where we think we might be going.

Give yourselves the opportunity to vote or to see.

Hey, you know what?

We may want to tweak this, we may want to tweak that.

It's not cementing anybody into anything.

So anyway, I apologize for my tone, but I just I I just don't understand what the fear is.

So I I would vote to approve it.

Mayor, can I just one little remark?

I think tabling it does give them something to start with.

I don't know.

They they would want to screw it.

I think it's the same thing as approving it.

It doesn't change anything.

Just to prove it.

But that's my opinion.

I'm one vote.

That's my opinion.

So let me let me just say, sorry.

When we did the revitalization plan, it was too you said 2007.

I think it was 2006.

At least that's when design started and when we went through the study, right?

We we approved that without not having a lot of funding.

But we found funding.

Lauren will remember this because I think we were both in the governor's office, and we walked in the governor's office with uh it was a UDOT road, they want to transfer it to Lehigh.

They offered us uh 47,000 dollars, right?

We walked out of the governor's office with 5.8 million dollars, right?

Because that's how much was in their maintenance budget for Main Street.

We we took that money, and because we had a plan in place, we were able to uh refine it at that time and rebuild Main Street, uh fix the sidewalks, the ADA ramps, uh, and improve parking bollards.

There's a lot of work we did.

But what was most important about that to get that project done is we had pipes in Main Street, we were one unaware of of their construction or what they were made out of.

Those pipes were either wood, copper-wound wooden pipes.

We got some samples here, what we pulled out of the ground.

The others were asbestos pipes.

We had no idea were in existence in that street.

Culinary asbestos pipes.

So that gave us an opportunity to remove those and replace those with something actually that is safe and effective.

And I don't know if those old ones were safe or not.

It just when I heard that that's what they were made from, I didn't even know they made pipes out of that material ever.

But that was many, many years ago.

But the fact that we had something in place, we refined it then to meet the expense.

And that money we rebuilt Main Street and we rebuilt Fifth West.

And what else we do with that money that those are the two projects.

It was important to have a plan in place because that's part of the reason we got money, right?

We just needed a plan.

We refined it afterwards, as we work through the engineering process of the actual design, we refined it.

But that was a very important thing that happened here at the city.

And uh we need to be ready for something when it does happen.

I'm just suggesting that, but things do change, and they do change for a good reason.

We've close public comment now.

It's up to council.

Uh Heather.

Yeah, I just go back to that.

That we've spent 18 months on this.

There are people in the room who have worked on this a lot of effort, work, time, money has been put into this.

Um, so to punt it to a future council, why not we punt it to the future council after that?

There's a is we're always gonna be what's gonna change is the council.

What's not gonna change is the process for the council to be able to see what the new vision is.

This is the vision that has been put in place and worked on for 18 months.

The future council can go spend another year and a half and work on a new vision.

Um that's theirs.

But the people whose names are on it now are the ones who've invested time who've met month after month, gone through, met with residents, found this.

So, yes, we may have different opinions from different people who are up here, people who are um there, but we've tried to put as much effort as possible into getting a starting place.

And that's what it is.

That's what this council has done.

The next council wants to change it.

That's that's on them.

I'll be part of that too.

But um I you know, I really appreciate the residents and everybody who've spent a lot of time, those who are on the committee to go out and put the effort into finding something so we can have something better than what we have right now.

And I I agree.

Like it's gonna change.

And it's gonna it's gonna change with the next council, it's gonna change with the council after that too.

But I think that's the whole part of what we see is everything is adapting and hopefully improving.

So I I agree with Chris, it might as well start it.

This is what was built for us, and then those who come next can build something else.

I'll I'll piggyback off of what Chris said.

This is a 164-page document.

What I've heard is there are a few tweaks that some council members on this dias now and that will be in the future think need to be made.

That doesn't seem like something that needs to be tabled when this is a visionary document.

It's not provided providing entitlements, it's not providing uh you know setting funding in motion.

This is a visionary document.

So let the new council come in and they can make whatever adjustments they want.

The other thing that I've heard is we've got a new mayor and council that are coming in.

That's awesome, that's great.

But when I was elected in 2021, my term is to serve through 2025.

My term didn't end when I didn't make it through the primary.

My term didn't end after the general election.

I'm still empowered by the residents that voted for me in 2021 to make decisions.

And so to have this idea that we should just let the new mayor and council make decisions when this has been in process for 18 months.

It's not like this is some rush document to try to get something in at the end of the you know term and sneak something in.

This has been in process for 18 months, had mass amounts of public feedback.

Uh the survey that was referenced earlier, yeah, it was a small percentage of the legal high population, but it was statistically significant.

There's a difference.

Like you're not going to survey and get 50% or 70% of the residents.

Statistics is a something that I don't fully understand.

I didn't major in statistics, but I do understand that when something is statistically insignificant, that means that it has meaning.

It's the equivalent as if you had surveyed the entire population.

And so uh I'm I'm in favor of moving this forward, and then the mayor and new council, they can make whatever adjustments they want.

But this is something that that I feel needs to be moved forward.

I've heard from the council, I'll take another motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 67-2025, approving the downtown revitalization plan and state street station area plan, including parts of Main Street and State Street as presented.

Okay, I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that, Mr.

Mayor.

A second by Paul.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, I think it's been a while since we've had the vote.

I think I'm starting with Michelle.

No.

Chris.

Yes.

Heather.

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you for your time, Sam.

And Kim.

Item 5.5 is consideration of ordinance uh 71, 2025 approving the water use and preservation element of the general plan.

Cam, Dave, I don't know.

Dave Norman's not here, right?

He was gonna he was online, was he?

He's not doing that.

Start out, and if there's technical questions, Dave said he'd be on standby, and I've got Lauren here for major water technical questions.

So in the 2022-23 legislative session, the state passed a bill that requires cities to have a water conservation element in their general plan.

And so and the deadline that was set to complete the plans is the end of this year.

So we're we pushed it to the yeah, this one has does have a deadline versus the other one.

Uh but this plan basically it analyzes the city's water uh resources.

It identifies where we you know all of the sources that we have for water, what our current usage is for both culinary pressurized irrigation.

Uh this plan is very much tied to the conservation plan that we adopted, I think a month or two ago, um, which outlines the measures that we're gonna take to to conserve water uh and how we deal with when we have um droughts and things like that.

So this plan uh analyzes our water system, both PI and culinary, and then it it uh identifies where we currently are encouraging conservation.

It has some recommendations on how we can do more conservation.

Uh and there are certain elements uh and I think we put them in the staff report right out of the state code that identified these are the areas that this plan needs to hit and hopefully we've hit them all.

This plan was um prepared similar to the previous plan.

The consultant was Hanson Allen Luce, which is uh was it there was another entity, but they were involved with the analysis.

So yeah, with that, I if there's questions you want to get into the plan, we can either pull it up on the screen or we can just have some question dialogue back and forth.

Council, do you have any specific questions?

Anybody in the public like to talk about this or ask questions?

Okay, we'll bring it back up here.

Mayor did have a question actually.

Okay.

Um reading through it.

Do we really require a permit to install water wise landscaping?

Is that um that's that comes out of chapter 35?

Um we're working on that.

The parks department, we have a urban forester, um, Jessica, I can't remember her last name, but she is trying to come up with a permit system.

But we don't currently that that is something that's a future.

Yeah.

Okay.

Interesting.

Okay.

Um I and I did notice a lot of the focus was on like not watering ground watering lawns or landscaping, that kind of thing.

I mean, uh has there and I've heard things from different sources about concern about our aquifer, right?

Has there been any studies?

Um you're probably not the water expert, so Lawrence.

Lauren's pretty good on the aquifer.

If we stop watering, you know, is it are we gonna be able to replenish that or is that affecting it at all, or just a little doesn't matter?

Actually, our our strata's are split.

They don't go all the way down.

Okay.

In other words, the light doesn't even hit some of our our lower ones.

Years ago they thought that the the whole area was one big bowl.

It didn't matter how deep you went.

If uh maybe I'll just reiterate this years ago when Micron came to town, they actually bought water rights in down in Goshen.

And they transferred them up here.

The time state engineer didn't thought that well, if you had a well there, well here didn't make any difference.

Same that is no longer the understanding because they thought the lake was one common thing that tied us all together.

That's not true.

And so what is on surface usually ends in some of these surface areas, not necessarily going down into the deep strata.

Deep strata is fed up by the mountains.

Okay.

So that probably it does help the lake and some other things if there's water going in, it'll it'll recharge some of those things.

Mill pond, some of these others.

But in the deep strata, it won't get down.

They're even doing a study now at the at the mouth of American Fort Canyon.

There's a sand pit there that they're actually recharging the aquifer where in the winter when you don't have the water rights necessarily, they're taking the water runoff that's coming to pipe into this sand pit to recharge the aquifer and just do some testing as to whether it's actually gonna increase the well uh capacity because that's one of the concerns when the aquifer goes down is then your you know your well and storage capacity goes down.

And so this is some of the things that they're testing to just kind of test that out.

They're doing that up at Raw Canyon too in Provo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um quick question if I can, Mayor.

Um as far as park strips, are park strips, even if it's not turf, are they still I uh uh are they still are they a good thing?

What uh I I know it says in here that turf is prohibited in park strips for HOA communities.

Um I don't know.

I just I I I like the idea of a park strip, but it seems like uh for us and for many cities are so hard to maintain regardless of what you put there.

Um I guess that's a whole nother discussion whether we keep park strips or not.

But I I don't know, park strips just seem like a tricky thing no matter where they're at.

Yeah, there's definitely a whole uh pros and cons list for park strips.

We can debate that a long time and we have to do that.

Yeah, but we we did uh in our conservation plan, we don't allow any turf if it's uh any narrower than eight feet because that once you go below eight feet, it's just you can't water it efficiently.

There there's not really a good sprinkler systems out there to water less you know, a strip narrow than narrower than eight feet, but it does, you know, it provides snow storage in the winter, which let's hope we get some or we're yeah, we're gonna have a really conservative year this year.

Uh you know, it's safer it you don't have to go through all the um curb cuts and things like that for driveways.

I mean there's there's advantages either way.

Um that but yeah, we could have that debate, I guess at a future.

But um so right now we our road standard does still require a park strip and it's seven feet wide.

Um which allows you know, we've had a lot of issues with trees in the park strips, and that's there were three feet wide and four feet wide, and with that seven feet.

I at least I don't know, we'll see how time plays out because it takes a while for those trees to mature, but we it seems like that wider strip is gonna solve a lot of the tree issues that we've dealt with.

But anyways I thought we still had uh integral section possible.

Yeah, it is and in the driveways we go around the right the ramp.

Yeah, yeah.

The default is the park strip, but if if you're dealing like the downtown, a lot of the sidewalks that we put in downtown because you're retrofitting and it and it causes a lot more disturbance of people's yards and things.

So we do still have an integral cross section that you can use at the discretion of city engineer.

So I know I like mine better than a park strip.

What it's worth, I've had both.

Okay, uh, council.

I'll take a motion on item 5.5 if someone would like to make a Mr.

Mayor.

I move that we approve ordinance 71-2025, approving the water use and preservation element of the general plan.

Okay, with motion to approve by Paul.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Heather.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

I'll start with the voting with Chris.

Yes.

Heather.

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

And Michelle.

Yes.

Item 5.6 is consideration of ordinance 68 2025.

This approving the Gurney property zone change on 8.62 acres located approximately 1200 west, 800 north, changing the zoning from TH5 transitional holding to R122.

Uh Symphony Development is the applicant.

Who is here representing those?

Come on up.

Hello, I'm Russ Wilson with Symphony Homes.

Um as you mentioned, just a request for a zone change, just uh uh to match the general plan for R 122,000 square foot lots.

Happy to answer any questions you you've got for me.

Council, do you have any questions on this?

Going from TH to what's specified.

Yeah.

Okay, if there's no questions, anybody in the audience want to address this issue?

Okay.

I'll bring it back up here.

Council, do you want to make a motion on I on 5.6?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 68-2025, approving the Gurney property zone change on 8.62 acres located at approximately 1200 west, 800 north, changing the zoning from TH5 transitional holding to R122 residentials agriculture zoning, and present with planning commission and DRC comments.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion has stated?

Hearing none, we'll go into the vote.

Uh Heather.

Yes.

All?

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

And Chris.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 5.7 consideration of ordinance 69 2025 approving the lease meet the lee zone change on half acre located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the zoning from RA1 to commercial.

Is he here?

Going up.

Tell us what you're doing.

We are just trying to get the zone change to the plan.

Um we're just looking to use it as office space.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Well, you have a seat.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like uh comment on this?

Okay, hearing none, I'll bring it back up here.

Council.

If there's no questions, I'll take a motion on item 5.7.

I have a question.

And I apologize.

This is a very big agenda, and this is one I didn't dive into, but is this uh we did a general plan amendment if a little while ago?

Yeah, a couple of months ago.

And on the three sizes it surrounded by residential.

It is yeah.

So that's what I thought.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Council, I'll entertain a motion.

I can't make that motion by the way.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 69-2025, approving the lease zone change on point five zero acres located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the zoning from RA1, uh residential agriculture to commercial and include planning commission and DRC Commons.

Okay.

I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Heather.

Any questions?

Okay.

I think Paul, I think I'm starting with you.

Uh yes.

Michelle.

Uh no.

Uh Chris.

Yes.

And Heather.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 5.8 is consideration of resolution 2025-91.

This approving the Hammond development agreement on a the light office warehouse project located approximately 600 West State Street.

Justin Hammond is the applicant.

On up.

That's what you're doing.

Good evening.

We uh well we've worked hard together.

Are you Justin?

Yes.

Okay.

Jordan Jordan.

Justin.

Oh, just I'm looking at the wrong line.

Justin.

Okay.

Yeah.

Just for the record.

Yeah, for the record, I'm justin.

If it's really bad, you're somebody else.

Okay.

Um, so we've we've kind of worked together to come up with a development agreement that satisfies what we believe to be all parties involved.

Um gone through the DRC and the planning and zoning and believe that we've kind of come to come to terms that make everyone happy as much as we can.

So happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

I remember there was one issue on the setback.

What you guys decide there on the north side.

Which issue?

Whether or not there was on commercial, there wasn't going to be a setback, and there was some question on that.

I don't I don't remember a setback issue.

I remember there being a like a landscaping question about if the buffer on that, yeah, the buff the buffer.

Okay.

And so we we address that by agreeing to keep the the greenery and move our our fence a couple feet on our side so that we could maintain the the greenery on there.

That basically answers my question.

I just remembered it was a discussion item.

Yeah.

Okay, uh council.

Do you have any questions?

We'll see if there's any public comment.

Anybody like to comment on this issue?

Hearing none, I'll close the public comment.

Council.

Can I just have two quick questions?

Yeah.

Um, so Ryan, I maybe in 1.6 and 1.7.

1.6 says this agreement will terminate without further action by either party if developer is not received site plan approval for the approval for the approved use within two years of the effective date of this agreement.

So the effective date is that become today or the or tomorrow whenever the mayor signs the agreement, I guess.

Yeah, it probably says the the later of whoever signs it, but should be within relatively short.

So if the mayor signs it first, then it'll be when the developer signs.

Signs it is when the two years starts.

Okay.

And then in 1.7, it says should developer abandon the approved use for one full year at any time after receiving site plan approval.

Um is that is that mean they come in, they get site plan approval, but then the lot just sets sits nothing's happening for one calendar year.

Correct.

Okay.

And then also in that one too, um, just to make sure I'm reading it correctly.

Or if the developer decides to sell the property, except as described in Article 4.15, the approved use shall expire.

The agreement shall terminate, and only those uses allowed in the designated zone at the time will be allowed.

So that's saying if they sell the property regardless whether you know they're using it as agreed upon, blah, blah, blah.

A future purchaser of the property cannot continue such use or or they can, but they can't change it to something different.

That's the where the use the zone that the use came from.

Okay.

Sorry, I know that's clear as mud, but thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I move that we approve item 5.9 um ordinance.

And the right thing is.

Resolution number 2025-91, approving Hammond Development Agreement on a light office warehouse project located at approximately 600 West State Street.

Okay, I have a motion to approve by Michelle.

Do I have a second?

Second.

A second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion?

Um we include the I think there was a DRC and thank you.

Yeah.

Yes.

Include the DRC comments or planning comments too?

Yeah, both of them.

Yes.

Second stance?

Yes.

Okay.

I have an amended motion.

And an approved second.

Any anything else?

Start with Michelle.

Yes.

Chris.

Yes.

Heather.

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 5.9 is consideration of ordinance 70 2025.

This approving the Hemond zone change on 0.83 acres, locate approximately 600 West State Street, changing the zoning from mixed use to heavy commercial.

This is the one tabled from the 82625 council meeting.

Do we just need to untable it and deny it?

I think that's what we need to do, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Now that you've approved the development agreement, that was the idea was that as long as that was agreeable, now you can go ahead and deny the zone change so that it doesn't rezone the property because they've already gotten their use approved in the development agreement.

Untable and denying the same motion.

Yes.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a move that we untable ordinance 70-2025 as presented and deny.

Okay.

I have a motion uh by Paul to undo and deny.

Okay.

Do I have a second?

A second with a question?

Would would you mind just mentioning that a finding of fact is because of the approval of 58?

Yeah.

And I'll add a finding of fact that this that is based on the approval of resolution 2025-91, uh, the development agreement associated with that same parcel.

Okay.

All right.

Have an amended motion.

Second stance.

Second stand.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Chris, I'm going to start with you.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

And Michelle.

Yes.

Mayor a question about that procedure.

So Kim, is that how you do untable and deny, or can the applicant just withdraw it?

Either one's fine.

Yeah, yeah.

Just wondering.

Okay.

In this case, he probably wanted to make sure he got the other one passed first.

So item 5.10 is consideration of resolution 2025 92, approving the water's edge development agreement, allowing 330 ERUs for residential and hotel located approximately 1350 East Interstate Plaza Drive.

Is the applicant?

Is he here?

Come on up, please.

This issue's been before.

So you Bob?

Yeah, I'm not sure.

Tell us tell us any changes or what you're planning here.

Pursuant to the last council meeting uh were uh the instructions were to work with the planning department to plan division to uh write up a plan a development plan uh agreement on the property uh where it is a uh mixed-use development um primarily hotel uh hotel development and also a residential on the property certain percentage for sale housing, certain percentage uh uh multifamily for rent.

Um we've worked closely with uh Kim and the Plan Plan Department uh to come up with this with a development agreement that you is in front of you tonight uh for final approval.

We've gone through the uh staff meeting, the planning commission, and now we're here.

Okay.

Uh council.

You have any questions?

Um I have one in in the agreement, section one or one point six.

Um where it talks about um shall provide public street access to both the north and the east in addition to maintaining existing access points to the west, providing that the City of American Fork grants approval.

What what's kind of the back backup plan if American Fork doesn't approve or approve of that?

Is there any thoughts about it?

There's not a backup.

Well, there's a number of other options.

I mean, there's there we have two, we have two ingress and egress points right now, one of the north through Woodbury, um, and then which was a permanent easement.

We have our fee access that act that um goes out to uh 1350.

Um we've also spoken to the apartment complex next door about uh doing a permanent easement uh through their property, which would connect with the circle at the end of 1350.

Uh but we didn't we haven't pursued that access because it um because we we spoke to American uh we spoke to Woodbury and American Fork and began the conversations with them.

Um went through a number of renditions.

The history, the history on it is we've gone through a number of renditions um on it.

First first rendition was uh it came straight across our property from our fee access straight across and dumped out right in front of Walmart.

Um both Walmart and American Fork rejected that outright.

Um they didn't want that traffic going there.

So we keep back to drawing board, we went north uh along the property up towards Woodbury, and then along the northern border of our property, uh connected with I think it's Spring Creek, um, which is right behind the bookstore at the northern end of of Walmart's property.

And uh we got favorable response from both Walmart and American Fork on that.

We right now American Fork is um they've pretty much agreed, but not in not formally.

Um we're waiting, we're waiting for Walmart's comments right now on that.

So we don't have a backup plan at all, other than to go back to rolling mills, roller mills apartments and go that direction.

Okay, just for my clarification.

So the one you're still negotiating with them is the the one on the northern end, the access on the northern end of the Walmart parking lot.

Yeah, it it it accesses right at the northern end of the Walmart property, yes.

Which I believe is Spring Creek.

It's just it's Spring Creek Road or something.

I don't remember.

It's an intern, it's a private road.

Yes.

So I mean it's got a road type of property.

It belongs to Walmart and it belongs to Woodbury.

Yeah.

Uh question, Lauren.

Um The dual left on on 1200.

Where are we?

Where are we with that?

I think it depends on this.

I mean, this is part of the agreement.

If they didn't get that, then they'd have to come back with this agreement again.

We'd have to re-evaluate all that.

So it's in there.

So this requires that connection forward.

Sorry, I didn't see that.

If we don't have that, then yeah, we need to return.

Okay.

Other questions?

Yeah, I do.

So they would have to come back.

It's not you would give them a lower density.

No.

They've got a the agreement has all these things in it, and one of those is that access into American Fork.

If that isn't there, then we have to reevaluate.

Okay, so they would come back to staff and reevaluate the density, is that correct.

Okay, would it come back?

Is that correct?

Yeah, and it may not hurt to clarify that in the development room.

If it if there's questions about what's required, we probably want to identify it now.

Something's conditional and it needs to be in the language.

Yeah.

I didn't see it in there.

Yeah, I think all of the road issues are in that one point six, paragraph one point six.

I think one point but you may want to clarify it.

I think that one does say it.

That is into uh the meadows area.

That road that he's talking about is the one into America before a section.

Okay.

1.7 talks about traffic, sewer, and water capacity.

Uh what about power?

That was the conclusion.

Those are all things that are going to have to be worked out.

That's not a part of this.

What was that?

Power is going to be something that need to be worked out.

That's not as happy to be able to do that.

Yeah, we have to resolve that.

You're you've got a development agreement that has components.

When we get into the planning stage, then we'll have to look at it.

There's some sewer issues and other things that need to be taken care of.

It doesn't spell all those out.

Okay.

I just don't want to.

The roadway it does.

Okay.

To me, that's a crucial element.

Because it is a confined area.

You're saying the roadways are spelled out in here adequately.

Well, I think it is, but it's would you look at it real quick?

Well, okay.

You're right.

And if you want to uh question for the applicant whether we're doing that.

Um I did see you kind of downgraded the hotel, which understand.

Um but do you do you know offhand how many rooms that might have if you went with a three-star hotel?

We're we're looking about a hundred rooms, somewhere around there.

95 to 100 rooms, something like that.

Um three, three and a half.

It's gonna get to be to be tough to get a four-star in there.

Um but a three-star would definitely be an upgrade to the area than what you have now.

Can I ask a question, Michelle?

Because I was saying the same thing, so thank you.

Um maybe I I forgot.

But what it says three or four-star, right?

What uh why is it tough to get a four-star in there?

When and and the reason I ask, is I remember when this very first came through.

Um it was a different gentleman that I spoke with, but he showed me kind of some renderings and things like that.

But I mean it was a very upscale type optimistic, yeah.

And I I I I sat here and I went to to Google, not Chat GPT, but anyway, well, maybe it is, I don't know.

Whatever.

But it it says a three-star hotel is and and nothing against these these businesses, but it's it's basically a Hyatt place versus a Weston or a Kepton.

And so I'm just kind of wondering what if if if we say three or four star, it sounds like there's really no incentive to try to get a four-star it's just gonna be a three-star, and I'm just wondering what what the reasoning is for that.

Well, four star four star is gonna be uh difficult in that location.

And I have no idea who you were talking to before.

You may it may have been Pat Nelson who was who used to own this property.

And Pat was famous for exaggerating everything or saying whatever he had to say to get approvals.

Um we call that infamous, not necessarily whatever whatever you want to call it.

Yeah.

It's part of the reason Pat's no longer doesn't own this property anymore.

Um four-star, I mean to get a four-star hotel, you you really need to you need to, I mean it has to be in almost a resort type of area to get that.

And it this really isn't a resort type of area.

And you know, remember, I mean you've still got to get a flag, you've still got to get investors, you've still got to get the rents, and and uh the marketing studies have to be done to support a four-star.

And um I mean it might it might it will it will support a three, three and a half somewhere on there.

I don't think it's gonna support a four-star hotel.

And that's why we we we we changed that.

We're gonna I mean we want to build a nice hotel.

Right.

Uh just so you know, just so you know tonight I'm doing some research, I'm staying at the Motel Six.

Uh-huh.

I've never stayed at a Motel Six before.

Um the one hair?

The one here.

Yeah, that's okay.

I'm I'm changed around.

Um definitely the standard will be up.

Definitely upgraded from that.

Uh I was gonna say, because I mean what it it it is a true statement compared to what's in the area, the motel sex, the super eight.

Yeah.

Or even the extended stay.

Uh I mean extended stay is probably a little more upscale than a motel six.

Uh but uh yeah.

But uh saying a two-star is generous.

Yes.

Yeah.

I I I used to own a drilling business and I stayed in those a lot because that's what was in those towns.

And yeah, it's so a higher place or something would still be very nice in this area.

Yes.

I I do believe so.

So I think a three, a three to four, uh th you know, three and a half to above a three is going to be definitely an upgrade to the area.

Okay.

It's going to be better than what I stayed in Arlington last week.

No, I just and and I I get I I I appreciate the vision that even you have if it's not um and I just I I think draw, right?

Obviously, draw to that area is a big deal.

Um whether you're coming to stay in the hotel or live around there or you know, whether it's walkability to something or whatever the the draw is, it's that that hotel is a big part of that, right?

Right.

So I I trust you.

So they could another quick question.

Sure.

Um so you do have the 30 percent for sell product.

Um and it doesn't specify if that's townhomes or apartments.

Are you are you mean con condos or townhouses?

Excuse me, yes, yeah.

Um just come by are you opposed to having it townhomes or well we're not opposed.

We we need I mean it it's all gonna come out in the site plan.

Well, we can fit on their parking wise and and things like that.

Our our plan is to do townhomes.

Is to uh two-car garage tuck under a three-story type townhomes.

With if the parking ser if if the parking allows that, if the if the the demographic the then city allows that, we'll that's that's our plan is to do townhomes.

Uh just a moment.

Kim.

This is part of a TOD area, right?

On our general plan.

Yeah.

That's gonna require 30 percent for ownership.

That would be if it was zoned TOD, and that was part of what are initiated all this is they were trying to change the general plan from TOD to mixed use so that they could develop this outside of having to meet.

Without the transit, we don't.

Oh, okay.

So that's yeah.

All right, you're right.

Okay.

Okay.

So you just want to leave it options open.

Yeah.

Okay.

Our goal is to do is to do townhomes.

The parking requirements.

And we may do a combination of the two.

Okay.

Do my combination of townhomes and condos.

Code.

What I prefer town homes, but I get it.

Um is there a mechanism.

Um to keep it a per sale and not a rental unit.

I think we did discuss this before, and that's kind of tricky, huh?

Yeah, uh I mean I'd love to have that put in my neighborhood, you know.

I don't know how you would do that.

I don't know how you would enforce that.

Yeah.

Um and then at the resident actually brought this point up and it was pretty good one.

I mean, potentially you could sell these to an investor at 30 percent, and then they could rent them out.

Is that yeah, I don't I don't know how you restrict someone any any I mean how you uh restrict a corporation from buying a unit or all the units or or uh you know I'm I'm I'm uh I'm open to suggestions.

Is there anything that we could put in there?

I mean Yeah, we can't really control what we can control is by the product type, you can set it up so that it's four sale units, but we can't control who buys those and if it's an investment firm that buys five at a time, or you know, I mean just like out on the west side, some of those condo buildings that Edge Homes built, and you have investors that have either bought you know half of a building or sometimes I think even a whole building.

But it it's set up for individual ownership, and maybe years down the road they divest themselves of that investment and it so it's still open for somebody to purchase versus where you set it up originally, it's all one big investment managed by a you know a large company.

Uh but I don't think we can go the next step.

You know, we can set it up to allow homeownership, but we can't regulate who actually lives in the units and who buys them.

We hear a lot about deed restrictions.

That's not a mechanism.

Yeah, I mean that that is what our our what was the last acronym we had for it?

We were gonna try that.

Jar.

We were gonna try it to do a deed restrictions where it actually said this has to be owner occupied.

And I know there was some question about in enforceability on that, but that you know that's something that kinda we could look at.

Are you gonna have an HOA?

Don't make any story.

Are you doing that?

Most likely, yeah.

Yeah, there will need to be an HOA.

Can an HOA enforce that?

They can put it in their bylaws, but again, it's hard to enforce.

I live in an HOA and it's I mean they have limits on the in theory, it's a limit of you know 10% of the homes can be you know rented.

Uh and there's you know certain exceptions here and there, but if I was renting my basement and none of my neighbors, you know, narc on me, then I I'm essentially like it's not a big deal.

In my HOA, um it has a restriction of short term rentals.

They don't allow anything under under year a one year leases, but they don't have any restrictions on whether they're rented or owner occupied.

And even from an individual ownership perspective, I could as an individual owner go in and purchase it and put it under an LLC from a personal liability standpoint, just because it's in an LLC doesn't necessarily mean that it's a investor.

So that so even that wouldn't necessarily be a way to kind of screen it out.

You gotta remember also we've been through this that the state legislature can change the requirements on an HOA without just to comment.

I home ownership is something you know our state is pushing for, right?

There's desirability there, but man, if we can't enforce it, it's almost better to keep it in one ownership.

I I I could stand on a soapbox right now and give you a whole speech on the these large corporations buying up homes and and and the reason one of the reasons prices are going so high on homes is they're driving prices up.

And so I could not tonight.

Okay.

Um I kind of have questions for staff and the applicant, I guess.

Um one of the the concerns I have is that we there's a homeless issue there.

Um and there's some security issues, in my opinion.

Um then excuse me, sorry, let me there's a section in oh 1.8.

Um it talks about the surrounding space should be improved with active uses, walking paths, view viewing areas to allow natural surveillance and deterrent unwanted trespass and nefarious activity.

Um that concerns me.

Um I it does it okay as a woman walking there at night.

I don't know if I would feel safe there.

You know, just because you have walking past doesn't make it a safe thing.

Um I don't know what the answer is.

I mean, they're nice, that'd be nice, right?

But it's if it's a secluded place, it's it could be actually quite dangerous.

Um, you know, the opposite of what we intended.

So if we unless there's better ideas, I would love to have something about lighting in there or you want to have lighting, you want to have lighting along the pass, but you don't want it to be intrusive upon the homeowners.

Yeah.

So it's a very delicate balance in there.

And I've dealt with this before up in Washington State particularly, um, where we've built in areas that um in that type this type of situation.

And uh it was a very delicate balance between having the past very well lit for night for safety and yet intruding upon the homeowners in lighting up into their living room and things like that.

So it's it's a I mean, and then this is something in the development uh the the planning, the planning of the project uh that needs to be um worked out.

But I mean that is a but the more activity you have the the with owner occupied with with um activity there, you're you're going to have a lot less homeless problem than you have now.

I mean, right now you are you we we already have a homeless problem there.

There's a number of camps there.

Um there's more than about two more than when I was here last, which was a month ago.

Um so it's gonna be less of a problem the more activity the more people live there, the more pride of ownership uh that goes in there.

Um it's gonna be you know kind of a self-watch, a self-neighborhood neighborhood watch program and things like that, which is gonna be, I'm sure they're gonna start.

I mean, I would.

I have one in my neighborhood.

Um but this these are all things come with pride of ownership um and uh and more activity um more public um using the using the areas to walk their dog at night or whatever.

Um these are things that help prevent that again, hopefully, right?

Um I mean you just think what's on the other side of there is a parking lot and again if there's secluded places, people tend to do things they don't want other people to see.

So I would prefer to include something about having the pathways lit.

And I know we have lighting standards where it's supposed to shine down and not be intrusive.

Um I think the other would this be um since it's not the the development agreement, it would be subject to the multifamily amenity requirements, is that right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

If it's not overridden or mentioned in the development agreement, it would default to our code.

So they would have to meet the amenities.

And so some of this could be part of those amenities.

They could put the wetlands alone, the wetlands alone are th are a third of the property.

I mean it's 13 and a half acres.

Um nine and a half is buildable, three acres is the wetlands.

So those will have to remain open.

Open space.

Those are a little bit more, and they probably change since last time I looked, but like picnic tables and little playgrounds or something.

Depending on how many sport courts.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

And it's based on the number of units as you go up in units, the amenities increase.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't.

I don't want to go overboard.

I kind of want fencing.

I I mean, is have you thought of that?

Um the neighborhoods fenced or well, we're I mean, we're going to have decorative fencing around the property, yeah.

I mean that's that that will be yeah.

I mean, that will be part of the plan is to have decorative iron iron fencing aro around the perimeter of the property.

Um you're still gonna have the the entryways um through it, um and you're gonna have probably entryways from other areas as well.

Um we can't gate gate it because now you've got a situation where the public can't go in and can't use it, and and you know, in the the the open areas.

Um so there's no plan to gate it right now, but um there is a plan to put a fence around it.

Yeah, I'm just gonna throw out my concern.

We have an apartment complex next to a really busy road, and the playground is right there.

And every time I drive by, I just cringe and hope no balls ever roll into the street.

So you're next to wetlands, and again, I don't know how if it's ponds or I haven't been down there, so I don't know.

And I just mostly mud.

Okay.

It's mostly mud is a good thing.

You just want to keep kids out of there.

That's what I'm saying.

You want to keep kids out.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yes, that's the thing.

Okay.

Um just think I I won't ask to put that in there, but please please consider your residents um and the little kids.

That uh one big concern I have is the parking requirements, and you stayed in there that um you're gonna hold them to the TOD parking standards and just design standards.

And that's a huge concern with me because that could be up to 50 percent reduction in the parking requirements.

Um it's a tricky spot anyway.

Um it's a tight spot, I think, and I just don't want these residents ended up parking, taking up parking spaces at um Texas Roadhouse or Culver's or whatever.

Um I still Walmart for ill, right?

So I I would I would like to consider striking that part.

Um section one ten.

Do you have any concerns about that?

Just holding to the typical parking standards for multifamily housing.

I I don't I'm not familiar with what they are.

Oh I can't say yes or no.

Which one are you?

Oh, I think so.

1.10.

1.10.

That's just what I had in my notes, sorry.

Oh, not the strike.

I'm sorry, I thought you said the striked out part.

No, I would like to strike out just the part of um COD to do that.

Meet the parking requirements.

I think it's 38.08 for transit oriented development.

Because in all honesty, we don't have the transit there.

I honestly don't think without the transit, this is a good place for this much density.

But if we're not having the transit, we're putting the density, I don't I personally am very concerned about reducing the parking standard parking requirements.

We've there's trouble within other parts of Lehigh where we've done that.

Um that's my concern.

Well, can I ask you that's a question on that?

Because I the the concern I have too is um I I think it's maybe a good thing to take out the TOD part of it, like you suggested.

How do we avoid the exchange type situation or things like that, other areas where there's not enough parking?

Um what's the standard we apply?

Um being a development agreement, I I I guess my point is if we apply the what code would do outside of a TOD, is that enough, or is that gonna make too much parking to where it adversely impacts you?

So it's it's like what what is that standard, you know, apartments, condos, townhomes, we know more people are probably gonna try to park there than either they live there or whatever it is, right?

And it I don't know, that's a tough thing.

I I agree.

It's a tough thing to figure out what the balance is for parking.

Um I'm just I'm just trying to think like you what the element is to decide to help decide what that number is.

Are you concerned no the overparking?

Well, I'm I'm concerned either both ways.

You could you could have all too much parking that you know maybe decreases the number of units they might be entitled to to the agreement.

But to your point, TOD, they may not have enough.

And and to your point too, if if we don't have the transit here, and if it's a car-centric, you know, type environment, well yeah, it's we're gonna have overflow.

Can I ask a question kind of along those lines?

So we're we're potentially approving a development agreement here.

Let's say we struck the TOD requirement and just went to the kind of mixed use.

But then, you know, as we're as as he's progressing with the site plan and everything, you know, he determines with staff that hey, maybe we have an overparking situation like Chris is concerned about.

At that point, could he come make a case to amend the development agreement to just address that?

Because may maybe you know, kind of the the middle ground here is let's err on the side of having too much parking, because uh because I agree with council member stallings that the TOD parking is probably overly generous or and overly optimistic given that there is no T in this.

Uh but I I I as long as there's a mechanism to potentially draw back what that requirement is through an amendment in the development agreement, I think that might be uh a reasonable compromise.

Is that before construction then is that what you're thinking?

Yeah, during the process during the during the site plan ye design stage.

When you determine when you determine whether it's town homes or condos, I I think it'll that's gonna be fairly informative as to the type of parking requirements that might actually be there.

So my my concern with my concern with not following the TOD parking would be overparking this and having a lot of available parking.

Um and there's the the density around this property is very, very high very heavy.

Um the apartments, um I believe those were done, those apartments were built on the TOD.

Um there probably, you know, there's a lot of demand for parking there.

My concern is the office building, um, you know, the hotel, the the you know, the uh Walmart, um the departments they start parking in this property because there's additional parking.

There's it's over parking.

There's too much parking, so there's open parking spaces, right?

And they start coming in here and parking there and going to work.

Or they come in, there they can't find a parking space in the roller mills apartments and they so they start parking here.

So um the density, the den it's a problem because the density around there is it's pretty dense.

Um there's a lot of uses around there.

And there's and there's all I mean, it truly is a mixed use property.

I mean, there's I mean, I will I walked around the I got in earlier today and I walked around.

I mean, there's big box retail, strip retail, there's restaurants, there's car washes, there's office buildings, there's industrial, there's manufacturing, there's there's there's lumber yards.

I mean, it is a truly mixed-use area.

It really is.

Yeah.

So you're saying you could cut both ways.

Over parking, underparking.

Underparking are yeah, I'm uh overparked it could be a bigger problem because now you've got other people coming in from outside to park there because there's additional parking.

And now you can't control who's there.

Um who's coming in.

But at least over parking, you could potentially have a permit system where people get towed if if they're not in underparking.

Well, once you're underparked, there's nothing you can do.

Of course, yeah.

There is no I mean we we've experienced that with Lehigh High School where people are overflowing into the neighbor the neighborhoods because it's underparked.

And as a result of that, it's it's overflowing and and what and we've uh there really is no solution that we can come up with because of the limited footprint.

And and like you said, it's not like you can if you're underparked, you can then you know expand into the wetlands and you've got three acres that you can that it's open space that you could potentially add parking.

So I can make it on the bad side.

If you start if you start having a parking problem with people and towing cars and and it gets uh it gets out of hand, now you've got to go to a gate system.

You've got to start gating the entrances.

And then now you've got to you've got to have a card to get in and get out, and and that becomes now you don't have any public access at all.

I I I don't I I I disagree with that.

Well, so let me let me just say some.

I've been trying to say this for a minute.

So we've we've had similar discussions in the past, and we actually we can we can ask as part of the submittal that a traffic study, a parking study be done.

I mean, the the engineers who do those know exactly how many an office will need, how many the hotel will need, the time that they study the time of the day.

That expands in the surrounding area like he's expressed a concern.

Well they can.

No, they they can look at that.

They uh I mean whatever we ask them to do, but that's we're kind of guessing what's gonna happen.

They'll actually analyze it.

And I've I've been through with some of those traffic engineers on projects that I've been involved in, and they do a pretty they can do a pretty thorough analysis.

And they're generally right.

Are you suggesting maybe in the development agreement it requiring the case?

I just say we require a parking study.

Sorry, yes.

You Paul pointed out that if you do your study or if you design it and come up with your concept and you feel that there it's overparked, you could come back and ask for amendment.

And it I think if you have a parking study, that could help the council understand that and and grant that amendment.

Does that mean it when you do your layout?

I'd ask to have a parking study done, have it reviewed by engine by our traffic engineer, right?

So there's a review in the process, because you need that before you do your site plan.

You need to know how many stalls you're gonna have to park for and where they're gonna be located in relationship to the hotel, the commercial, and the uh residential units.

If the parking study is in the development agreement, at least my take it, if if I understand what you're saying here, is then we're not in TOD, we're not in the current use.

It is the parking study will dictate what the parking requirement is.

Yes.

And then as a council, whoever's sitting up here, they can review that and say, yeah, that that makes sense.

So would you want it to come back as an amendment or just leave it just we'll just trust your parking study or well let's get that parking study is going to be mandated if it's in the development agreement, it would be required as part of the site plan.

So before the site plan is approved, they would have to have that as part of that uh that site plan to we we can put it included in the in the power, water, sewer.

Yeah, all the DRC type of stuff that it would go through.

Okay, if we if we strike the section where it talks about the TOD's design standards, so then he would be held to what is required in multifamily housing.

Uh but if they do their study and they think that's too much, they would come back here or just get out of here.

I'm suggesting do it instead of having to revert back to multi-use, require a parking study and have that come through with it through the process.

Yeah.

So instead of having to come back and ask for a develop uh an amendment to the development.

Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

The parking study essentially dictates as it's coming through the DRC planning commission and everything else.

And then you you have our traffic engineer review it.

He goes through all the data and says, yeah, I like this, but there's this thing, did you consider this?

It's a back and forth, and and those those are pretty accurate.

I I think to your point, it still has to come to you as a council to agree or to disagree and question that.

That's what I want to get to.

And that's that kind of answers my question.

I like that because it's that that middle ground that didn't really have a name to it, but now we can say parking study.

So just make it contingent on the parking study results.

I mean, it's kind of like an area plan essentially is its own zoning rules and laws.

This is essentially saying, look, we we're not quite sure where this fits, but this parking study will determine as it comes to the present back to the council.

Yeah, and I think in the motion, it should include the parking study.

We should make clear it includes the surrounding areas, right?

So not just for the development, but the surrounding areas.

Yeah.

And then is that's just a requirement to come back to council for you guys to review that study and hear from the traffic engineer and then just one other comment, maybe if if I could on the homeless lighting, parking, all that.

To me, that seems like it's something that the developer will self-regulate.

I I understand the concerns, uh, but I I think it's a bit too of a too heavy-handed to say I think you should have lighting on the paths.

I think you should have this.

If if they don't have lighting on the paths and it starts to become a problem, they're gonna put it in.

I mean it's it.

So I I the residents are gonna complain, the hotel patrons are gonna complain, it's gonna have bad reviews on you know the the high at place.

Oh yeah, it's dangerous, you get homeless outside.

I it it will self-regulate.

Yeah, my we still need to market these to the public, and the public's gonna have to buy these or rent these and or stay here at the hotel.

So there you're still gonna have to design it to be ergonomically correct for the for the users.

So I mean and those are all things that you we do we do normally.

You know, we do those normally.

Parking is one thing because it impacts i a broader kind of regional area.

Uh so I think it's okay for us to address that.

The the others, I I think we're okay leaving it to the developers to just decide what's what's appropriate.

And you would hope, but again, every time I drive past that park.

It's like really.

Well, I was gonna ask you.

I'm assuming you're talking the one on Temp Highway.

Yes.

Yeah.

I I I know the one you're talking about.

I to my knowledge, there hasn't been a ball roll out in the street.

But yeah, I I it gives me a little bit of heartburn too.

Fortunately, this one I I mean, you're at least you don't have alligators in the pond like you would in Florida.

So it's it's not quite that big of a concern.

And and it is more of a mud pit than it's a mut it the the south end of it, there's some water, there's some standing water, but the the anything I mean the m most the three quarters of it is always pretty much m mud and weeds.

You really don't get water until the other side of the freeway on the true milk.

Yeah, the real the real ponds on the other side of the freeway.

But it is it is it is that off my own.

Tech Nasco is one point nine sufficient because it does say one point nine that they will comply with all Lehigh City Development Code design standards and the public improvement specifications manual.

And I wonder if that I don't know if you're the improvement.

Yeah, and also for the lighting and all the stuff.

I mean, it's all it's at 1.9, I think it's generally clear.

I mean, uh, we're we're site heavy in my opinion on a lot of our developments anyway.

So I think it's covered.

I think you do have to specify the traffic study.

Yeah.

Parking study.

No, I that's that's what I'm just saying.

I think I'm just seeing a 4.9.

Just another view about this.

Um I don't want to go overboard.

I got criticized for talking about controlling the property.

Um I actually said controlling the housing and the density and the protections.

Um but this is um he's getting the density even though it doesn't the density of a TOD, even though it doesn't fit a TOD.

So he is actually getting some the developer, the property owner is getting something out of this.

So I I think it's fair if we have some asks as well.

Um finding that right balance is important, I think.

Um but that's just another motion.

One more, one more issue.

Yes.

Maybe one more issue.

The cap.

I'm watching Chris's body language here, and he needs a break pretty quick.

Oh no, I'm not sure.

Sorry, this is kind of a big thing.

It's not a good thing.

Okay, the cash using them.

Yeah.

Um to 330 units, depending on all the studies.

Um, but we have at 230, you're entitled 230 before you have to no more until the hotel is built.

That's my understanding.

So I think I think it says design, doesn't it?

Approved or designed.

Does it say the hotel?

It says no more than 230 residential dwelling units may receive final approval prior to the hotel obtaining site plan approval and assurance of a building permit.

Building permit.

Right.

So you say built, it's a building permit.

Oh.

Um, the concern I have is if um the roads, the traffic, the sewer, whatever limits it to very close to 230 anyway, I don't know.

Um, then what is the incentive for him to sorry you keep saying him, the developer to design and get a building permit for the hotel.

Agreed.

Okay.

So sorry, I'll be honest.

No, I mean those that's a that's a that's a revenue generating asset.

So the hotel.

I mean, it's not we're not building, you know, homeless housing.

I mean, it's gonna be a re revenue generating um endeavor.

So otherwise we just have a vacant lot.

And that's not why we're doing this.

We're doing this.

We're doing this for profit.

Yeah.

I mean, we are in this for profit.

And the hotel will be a profitable portion of this development.

And so there's no reason for us not to go forward with the hotel and leave it a vacant lot.

If we're gonna do all the all if we're gonna do so just I mean, uh d uh uh from a development standard, there is a there is a lot, there's a there's a tremendous amount of common area that has to be engineered and built because all this wetland has to be has to be sectioned off in order for you to build on it.

So there's an awful lot of infrastructure that has to be done before anything can be built.

Um and that's a lot of money invested up front to get that done.

So and and that's that that investment is spread amongst the entire development, the hotel and the housing.

So why would we build only two thirds of it and leave it a third not built?

I mean, we we I mean it it's all about profit, it's all about revenue.

Um and that's what this what that's why we're here.

Yeah.

I I just know that in other instances we do developers want to put in the the residential, that's the money generator.

Um is what I've been told, and that's what it seems to be.

And we I just know in other instances with area plans and development agreements that we do, okay.

You're allowed this many residential, but then you gotta build your other keep to your other promises, whether it's you know, office space or retail or whatever.

Well, we're just saying I mean just I mean, we're planning on doing the whole site plan at the same time.

Planning out the whole site at the same time.

So we know the ratios and and the parking and and everything else in there because it's gonna have to be pl the whole site's gonna have to be planned.

Like we can't just do the residential portion.

It's gotta be all planned together.

Um it's gotta be laid out together.

So um that's our plan at least, is to do it all at one time.

Kim, what are your thoughts on that, or Lauren?

Um it's definitely within your purview to have a trigger.

I think what he's saying is he probably not necessary on his end, but if we want that security that we we want some kind of assurance that the hotel will be built because that is a revenue generator for us.

I guess all of it, you know, it's gonna have property tax on the residential, but I think we have yeah, we want to make sure the hotel gets built.

I I mean whether it's building permit or occupancy, that can fluctuate, like whatever you feel like is gives you the highest level or the I guess the minimum level that we to pass the agreement.

I think the hotel aspect is kind of the driver of this.

Otherwise we would have just let you use do mixed use, right?

Because it just has no commercial requirement or whatever.

Um well, if you're gonna do it anyway, you wouldn't be opposed to changing that 1.4 to occupancy or before okay.

Well, hang on.

Yeah.

Because it sa it says no more than 20 200 dwelling units.

Um I can't read it, it's scratched out.

Mayor see final approval prior to the hotel obtaining site plan approval and see that that's that puts the cart before the horse.

I mean I mean, they're gonna be done simultaneously, and the way that reads.

Um I mean, if we have to have occupancy in a hotel, we can't even start the residential until we have occupancy in a hotel.

Or can't start the last 100 units of residential.

Three hundred two hundred and thirty units, I guess, yeah.

And that's that's now we got the opposite problem.

So are you saying you're going to be building residential hotel, it's all gonna be coming at once or we're gonna design we're gonna design the whole site.

The whole site is going to be planned.

Um I I don't I can't tell you what the stages or what the pl what the what the timing of everything is.

Um my engineer is gonna have to figure that out, my architecture gonna have to figure that out.

That's uh my bankers are gonna figure that out.

So there's a lot of there's a lot of factors that go into what gets built first, what gets built where, but to to to build to have occupants of the hotel prior to breaking ground on the residential, uh that's now we've got the opposite problem.

So I mean from our standpoint.

So you would have occupancy for 230 units is what that was saying.

And then the hotel occupancy just unloc is what would unlock the last hundred.

We would just be the last one hundred units.

So I guess we're trying to figure out what phasing would the hot were you expecting the hotel to come in.

We just want to make sure that the hotel comes in before the residential is fully complete at 30.

Yeah, I haven't I haven't worked that phasing in yet or that timing in yet.

I mean I know we're building the hotel because that's a revenue generator.

And it doesn't make any sense to leave that that's that portion of the property vacant.

Um the whole reason we're going through this is to build out this site.

Um the to not build the hotel doesn't make any sense.

But but there's other there's other factors.

There's different factors in both.

I mean, subdivision maps and and uh on the residential side.

Then we've got, you know, we've got a flag, we've got flag issues, we've got, you know, whether we're what um you know, the design of the hotel, um, you know, what amenities we're gonna do in a hotel.

So they're they're complete they're they have different schedules of development um in play here.

So it it it it's it's very difficult to hold us to a occupant occupied hotel before we can do anything.

I mean, I I I understood the way it was written, building permits, because that's really that's that's planned, that's gone through playing plane department that's building permits paid for.

So we've already we've got a lot of money invested in that hotel at that point.

We've got architectural done, we've got entitlements done, we've got uh engineering done.

So that's millions of dollars already invested in that hotel.

To just leave that vacant, that makes no sense.

I mean, in order to not not go forward with it at that point.

We've got a very large investment in that hotel at that point.

So in order to get our two thirty, we have to have millions of dollars already invested in that hotel.

We may not go vertical yet with it.

Right.

But we've got uh millions of dollars invested in that hotel already in in in architectural and and building permits and and engineering and everything else.

Yeah.

So you're not gonna make that up through residential units anyway.

Right.

They're completely different schedules.

I mean, you're they're they they Well, and I'm saying the rev the expense on that hotel, you're not gonna make that up to the cell of 370.

No built you can't set it.

So may I ask Marlin a question?

I hope you really can I get your opinion as our economic developer.

Um you understand my concern, I think, right?

Yes.

Um it's it's the mechanism and and the developers correct in the fact that it's it's about all about phasing.

So what you need to try and decide is, okay, do we allow him to do two 230 units?

And then he has to pull the trigger on the hotel before he can get building permit for 232 to 330 or whatever that is.

So what is that trigger me trigger mechanism?

Again, he's gonna phase it, they're gonna develop it, but it puts the owners back on him also to say, okay, we can get this many units done, but in the meantime, we've also got to be working on the hotel because we hit this max point here.

He's million, two million, three million dollars out the window for the hotel.

They're not gonna sit on it, they're gonna pull the trigger to get the hotel going.

So my question back to you as counsel is what's the number?

Are you gonna allow 150 units?

Split the baby in half?

Are you gonna allow 230 units?

And then he has to have a building permit pulled at that time.

Because once you pull the building permit, they're not gonna sit on it because they're already two million dollars in the hole, they're gonna get it built.

But again, the other issue is they go out and look for hotel year.

It it's not that he's just gonna say, hey, I got a piece of property, come take a look.

They actually have they actually have to go out to the hotel years.

And they have to fish the site, and and it might take six months or even a year to get that flag to come on board, and then they start the whole engineering process with their flag, because they've got their own amenities, their own look, their own feel, their own everything that goes inside the building.

Um so it's probably gonna take what, another six months, maybe even eight months to go through engineering if you're lucky with the hotel year.

So even on a good schedule, it's still gonna take them probably a year and a half to almost two years to be ready to pull that building permit through our process and bring them on board and everything.

So I think all he's asking for is can we get enough track to run on to start building the the the housing?

And again, the the question that you need to answer for yourself tonight is what is that trigger point that you can't build anything above and beyond this until you've done X for the hotel.

Okay.

And there's one in there already, and I just wanted to understand, and I appreciate your advice or opinion on this or input.

That the building permit is enough far along that they will continue.

They've invested enough that they will continue.

Exactly.

It's a substantial enough milestone that come back.

Yeah, they're not going to turn back.

Once you pull a building permit because of the bonding, I mean everything that we require on top of all the money that they have to spend to get to that point.

I'm worried that we're trying to dictate something that we're not really good at.

This is, you know, we don't do this.

I worked with enough enough property owners and developers to know that they there's financial uh issues that they have to deal with, and I I agree with the applicant here.

I mean the banks get involved, there's a lot of people involved in the process.

There's gonna be different owners involved.

Uh I just I'm not sure why we're trying to dictate.

I think we're a good thing.

I I think part of it too is you're right, we aren't good at this, but we're responsible for the decision and we made a promise that a hotel's coming.

So I agree that we we want to have that make sure that we're doing enough to assure that we put those safeguards in place that we're gonna deliver on what we've been out there promising.

So but I think it is because we don't know.

Like if you're telling me, okay, it was site plan, I don't know the bondings in place, I don't know everything else is in place, how much money is invested, that you know, that that gives me a lot more assurety than before the questions were asked.

Because uh you know, once that site plan is approved, what's kind of a typical timeline to when it starts shovels in the ground?

Is it like is there like a a time like a um you have so much time before you need to start doing that once you have that approval.

Well, I I will say we we we just finished a hotel in Palm Springs.

It was a it was a high it.

We didn't.

I did it with somebody else, not this group, but a different group.

Um we we went farther a long way down the road designing the hotel what we thought would be a good hotel.

Once we got high it involved in it, they pre basically just scrapped our plans and started all over again.

And I cannot tell you how many hours and days and weeks and months we spent going over every little nook and cranny and corner and window and the you know, I mean oh my and where the where the kitchen was and where I mean it was it was I mean once you get the flag involved, it becomes a huge process.

Um and and they they are very especially well if we're gonna do a three and a half, three to three and a half star hotel, they're gonna be very, very particular about what they build because they have to they have to keep it occupied 65, 70 percent on a regular basis because so they're gonna have to make sure that hotel is designed properly to do that.

So I I I felt that it was fair because we're gonna have a major investment by the time we get to building permits, we're gonna have a lot of time invested, we're gonna have a flag attached to it.

Um we're gonna have it designed.

Um there's no reason why we would not go forward with it at at the stage of building permits.

That's why we're pulling building permits.

Okay.

So it's helpful for us as a council.

Sorry, turn over you, Heather.

No, you're it's helpful for us to understand that.

Okay.

Because we don't know, and we have experts who do.

So I appreciate it.

Thanks.

So I just have a quick question if I could.

Yeah.

If if we don't have a mechanism to enforce 1.3, why are we putting 1.3 in the 30 percent unit?

If if we don't have a way to Well, no, that just that just says 30 percent for sale.

Right.

It's do we so I guess I guess we're gonna be able to do that.

Yeah, two different things.

We can make it.

But I guess the intent behind 1.3 though is to keep not apartments.

Yeah, right.

And there's to keep uh us honest.

Yeah.

The developers are I know I just that's also so that they're they're not being rented, right?